Housing Needs of American

Indians and Alaska Natives in

Tribal Areas:

A Report From the Assessment of

American Indian, Alaska Native, and

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).

Other  services  of  HUD  User,  PD&R’s  research  information  service,  include  listservs,  special  interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.

Housing Needs of American

Indians and Alaska Natives in

Tribal Areas:

A Report From the Assessment of

American Indian, Alaska Native, and

Native Hawaiian Housing Needs

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development

and Research

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Nancy Pindus

G. Thomas Kingsley

Jennifer Biess

Diane Levy

Jasmine Simington

Christopher Hayes

Urban Institute

January 2017

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the tribal leaders and housing directors who agreed to participate in this study and facilitated the approval process and data collection efforts. They also thank the tribal research review boards and councils that approved this study, providing oversight

and assurances that encouraged participation and forthright responses. They are especial y

grateful to the household survey respondents residing in the 38 sampled tribal areas, the

tribal and Tribal y Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) directors who responded to the

telephone survey, and the housing agency managers and staff and other program staff who

talked with the research team during site visits. The success of this research depended on

their wil ingness to share knowledge and insights. Everyone’s contributions were richer in

detail than it was possible to reflect in this report.

NORC at the University of Chicago was responsible for the household survey and the

telephone survey of tribal housing departments and TDHEs. This complex effort was

completed successful y and with cultural sensitivity. The authors thank Carol Hafford

(project director) and Suzanne Bard (survey director) for their excellent management and

implementation of the surveys and for their participation in site visits and qualitative analysis.

They also thank NORC researchers Steven Pedlow (statistician), Beth Fisher, Bernard Dugoni, Patricia Maugherman, Alyce Marshal , Joan Lipiec, Eram Khan, Judith Nell Petty, Kyle Fennel , Ned English, Katie Archambeau, Ilana Ventura, Katherine Burda, Ed Sipulski, Mario Tejada,

Haider Baig, Amy Bartolini, Chet Bowie, and Elizabeth Johnson and also the American Indian

and Alaska Native field interviewers for the important roles they played in sampling design, tribal outreach, survey development and administration, field operations, mapmaking and

listing, quality control, analysis, and disclosure review.

Econometrica, Inc., and Support Services International (SSI), Inc., were key partners on this study. Charles Hanson, Richard Hilton, and Doray Sitko (Econometrica) handled logistics

and provided clear and succinct summaries for tribal consultations and also participated

in the site visits and qualitative analysis; Wayne Mundy participated in Alaska site visits.

Walter Hil abrant and Judy Earp (SSI) contributed to the research design and data collection protocols and participated in the site visits and qualitative analysis. SSI also organized

meetings of the expert advisory panel.

A panel of experts made valuable contributions to the research design and to this final

report. Panel members included Laura R. Appelbaum (FirstPic, Inc.), Kauila Clark (Native

Hawai an Traditional Healing Center), Marvin Jones (Community Services at the Cherokee

Nation—retired), Miriam Jorgensen (University of Arizona and Harvard Project on American

Indian Economic Development); Patricia Nie (Wel s Fargo & Company), Deana K. O’Hara

(Office of Native American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development),

Don Shircel (Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.), Pamala Silas (National American Indian

Housing Council), and Malia Villegas (National Congress of American Indians). Early

comments were also provided by Blake Kazama (Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority—

retired) and Peter Morris (National Congress of American Indians).

In addition, the research team expresses deep gratitude and appreciation to the tribal leaders and others from across the country who provided extensive and thoughtful commentary on

the draft report.

The study benefited immeasurably from the support of leadership within the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Office of Public and Indian

Housing (PIH), including the support of Assistant Secretary Sandra Henriquez at the

beginning of the study, of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Lourdes Castro-Ramírez

as the data were being collected and the final reports written, and of the three Deputy

Assistant Secretaries for Native American Programs (ONAP) who served during the life

of the study, including Rodger Boyd, Randy Akers (Acting), and Heidi Frechette. ONAP

staff, especial y Deana K. O’Hara and Emily Wright, commented on reports, responded to

numerous inquiries, and facilitated communication with tribal leaders and stakeholders. Alia Fierro, 2016–2017 Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Housing Graduate Fellow at HUD’s

Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) prepared appendix J. Blair Russel , social science analyst, contributed to an analysis of the Indian Housing Block Grant construction

costs and grant amounts.

Elizabeth Rudd and Paul Joice, the study’s Government Technical Representatives from

HUD/PD&R, provided excellent guidance and oversight during this research effort. The

authors also thank Jennifer Stoloff for her assistance before leaving HUD.

The authors also thank Urban Institute colleagues who contributed to the successful

completion of the study. Doug Wissoker developed the tribal area sampling plan and worked

with NORC on survey sampling and weighting. Kathy Pettit prepared population data tables

and advised on the interpretation of relevant census data. Eric Burnstein and Lily Posey

assisted with data preparation and analysis. Former colleagues Abigail Baum and Brittany

Murray participated in site visits and data analysis, and Chris Narducci and Amos Budde

assisted with data preparation and analysis earlier in the project.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the

U.S. government.

Foreword

In response to Congress’s mandate to assess Native American housing needs, the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) commissioned the Assessment of

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawai an Housing Needs. The study produced five

separate reports, which together contain a comprehensive and authoritative body of information on the current state of housing conditions and resources in Native American communities. The study also provides a broad assessment of how tribes have used the control of HUD housing

funds they gained through passage of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-

Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996. This report,  Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas, presents results of two original and unique data sources produced specifical y for this study: (1) a national y representative survey of housing conditions and needs among American Indian and Alaska Native households in tribal areas and (2) a survey

of 110 Tribal y Designated Housing Entities, including 22 site visits. Results of these surveys are complemented in this report by analyses of data from decennial censuses, the American

Community Survey, the American Housing Survey, and HUD financial and information systems.

This report tel s two main stories. First, the housing problems of American Indians and Alaska Natives, particularly in reservations and other tribal areas, are extreme by any standard. Of American Indian and Alaska Native households living in tribal areas, 23 percent live in housing with a physical condition problem of some kind compared with 5 percent of all U.S. households.

To measure homelessness in tribal areas this study took a novel approach and asked heads of households if an adult was living in the household who would be living in his or her own housing unit if he or she could. From that question, this study estimates that between 42,000 and 85,000

homeless Native Americans are living in tribal areas. Unlike on-the-street homelessness, in tribal areas homelessness often translates into overcrowding. Of American Indian and Alaska Native households living in tribal areas, 16 percent experience overcrowding compared with 2 percent of all U.S. households.

Second, tribes have produced housing much more quickly under NAHASDA than they did in

earlier periods, despite the fact that the buying power of Indian Housing Block Grant funding has been substantial y eroded by inflation since it was introduced in 1998.

HUD’s first national assessment of Native American housing needs was published in 1996,

just as NAHASDA was paving the way for a fundamental reinvention of HUD’s Indian housing

programs that shifted control to tribes and provided them greater flexibility to respond to local needs. Published 20 years later, the assessment reported here confirms the success of the

self-determination that NAHASDA enabled, while emphasizing that the housing needs in tribal areas remain the most severe in the nation and that the resources to address the problems have declined more rapidly than for other federal housing programs.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy

Development and Research

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................xv

Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions  ...........................................................................xvi

Housing Conditions and Needs  .............................................................................................................xviii

Housing Policies and Programs  ............................................................................................................xxii

Conclusions and Recommendations  ...................................................................................................xxvii

Introduction .........................................................................................................1

Introduction to the Overall Assessment .............................................................................................1

Purpose and Content of This Report ...................................................................................................3

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions ............................................................3

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs ............................................................................................4

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs ............................................................................................4

Sources of Information ..............................................................................................................................4

Background Interviews and Literature Reviews  ..........................................................................5

Data From Census Bureau Products and HUD Administrative Data Files  ........................5

New Data Collected Specifically for This Study ...........................................................................7

Geographies ...................................................................................................................................................10

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions ...............................13

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................13

1.2. Population Growth and Distribution .............................................................................................14

Defining the American Indian and Alaska Native Population ..................................................14

Population Growth  ..................................................................................................................................15

Broad Spatial Patterns ............................................................................................................................17

Population Trends for Tribal Areas by Region ...............................................................................19

Mobility .........................................................................................................................................................21

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

v

1.3. Social and Economic Conditions ....................................................................................................22

Age Structure .............................................................................................................................................23

Household Sizes and Types ..................................................................................................................26

Educational Attainment .........................................................................................................................29

Employment ................................................................................................................................................31

Income and Poverty .................................................................................................................................34

How the AIAN Population Fared in the Great Recession ..........................................................36

The National Story ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Regional Variations ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Implications .................................................................................................................................................39

1.4. Economic Development ....................................................................................................................39

Background: Expansion of Economic Development in the 1990s  ........................................39

Employment Growth in the 2000s ....................................................................................................41

Tribally Owned Businesses and Enterprises ...................................................................................43

1.5. Diversity Among Tribal Areas ..........................................................................................................46

Indicators and Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................47

Diversity and Correlation Analysis  ....................................................................................................49

Mapping Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 49

Regression Analysis  ..................................................................................................................................... 50

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs ............................................................55

2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................55

2.2. Housing Characteristics ....................................................................................................................56

The Housing Stock in Indian Country ...............................................................................................56

Vacancy Rates ............................................................................................................................................57

Tenure (Renter versus Homeowner Occupancy) .........................................................................59

Structure Type............................................................................................................................................60

Other Indicators ........................................................................................................................................61

Age of Structure and Unit Size ............................................................................................................... 62

Home Values and Rents ............................................................................................................................. 63

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

vi

2.3. Housing Problems and Needs ........................................................................................................63

Framework and Standards ....................................................................................................................64

Attributes of the Framework .................................................................................................................... 64

Specific Standards Used in This Report ............................................................................................. 64

Housing Problems and Needs—Survey Results ............................................................................66

Housing Problems as Reported by the U.S. Census/ACS .........................................................68

Problems for Low-Income Households ............................................................................................... 70

Variation by Region ...................................................................................................................................... 70

Change in Tribal Area Housing Problems Over Time ................................................................... 73

Overcrowding and Physical Deficiencies .........................................................................................73

2.4. Housing Composition, Overcrowding, and Homelessness .................................................76

Household Composition .........................................................................................................................77

Household Size ..........................................................................................................................................78

The Relationship Between Overcrowding and Homelessness ................................................79

Extent of Overcrowding and Overlapping Cost Burden ............................................................ 81

Extent of Literal Homelessness  ............................................................................................................. 82

Prevalence of Homelessness Risk Factors ......................................................................................83

Perceived Characteristics of Homeless and Near Homeless People  ...................................83

Availability of Homeless Services on Tribal Lands.......................................................................84

Estimating the Size of the Literal and Near Homeless Population on Tribal Lands ........84

2.5. Demand for and Barriers to Homeownership and Mortgage Lending  .........................86

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs ............................................................92

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................92

3.2. The Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance in Indian Country  ....................................93

The “1937 Act” Programs ......................................................................................................................93

Initiating Federal Housing Assistance  ................................................................................................ 93

Important Accomplishments, but Residual Issues ........................................................................ 94

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

vii

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act ..............................95

Basic Objectives, Activities, and Eligibility .....................................................................................95

Regulations and Amendments  .............................................................................................................. 98

Federal Guarantee for Financing Tribal Housing Activities ....................................................... 98

Operating and Monitoring Activities Under NAHASDA ............................................................. 98

Funding and Financial Performance .................................................................................................100

IHBG Funding .................................................................................................................................................. 100

Total Funding by Source (Sources of Funds) ................................................................................... 101

Expenditures (Uses of Funds) .................................................................................................................103

3.3. The Assisted Housing Stock ...........................................................................................................106

Change in the FCAS (1937 Act) Housing Stock ...............................................................................107

Housing Production Under NAHASDA ............................................................................................110

Cumulative Assistance as of 2010 and 2014 .....................................................................................112

Grantee Reports on Housing Stock Quality ......................................................................................115

3.4. Administration of the IHBG Grant ................................................................................................117

Grantee Types and Evolution in the Administration of the IHBG Program  .......................117

Characteristics of the Organizations That Administer the IHBG Program  .......................119

Contracting Out Administrative Functions  ....................................................................................121

Priorities for Organizational Improvements  ..................................................................................121

3.5. Contributions of Other Housing and Community Development Programs  ................123

Publicly Funded Non-IHBG Housing and Community Development Programs

Operating in Indian Country  ................................................................................................................124

Housing Provided in Indian Country by Other Major Housing Programs  ..........................125

Other Publicly Funded Non-IHBG Housing Programs Operating in Indian Country  ....126

3.6. IHBG Housing Development and Management  .....................................................................126

Challenges in New Housing Development  .....................................................................................127

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................... 127

Availability of Labor ...................................................................................................................................... 129

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

viii

Lack of Funds and Rising Development Costs .............................................................................129

Land Assembly and Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 130

Environmental Review Process ...........................................................................................................130

Chal enges in Maintaining Existing Housing Stock ........................................................................ 132

3.7. Homeownership and Mortgage Lending Programs  ..............................................................134

Background .................................................................................................................................................134

History of Legal Status of Land in Indian Country  .....................................................................134

Implications and Challenges for Homeowners and Lenders  ..................................................135

Mortgage Lending Programs ...............................................................................................................136

Section 184 (NAHASDA) ............................................................................................................................ 136

Section 502 Direct Lending (USDA Rural) ........................................................................................ 136

VA Direct Lending ......................................................................................................................................... 137

Federal Programs To Address Land Status and Property Rights Issues ............................138

Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act  ..138

Other Programs To Assist Homebuyers  .........................................................................................138

Homebuyer Education ................................................................................................................................ 138

Downpayment Assistance ......................................................................................................................... 139

Home Repair/Rehabilitation Loans ....................................................................................................... 140

On-the-Ground Efforts Since NAHASDA ........................................................................................140

Access to and Response by Lenders ................................................................................................... 140

Tribal Capacity and Innovative Approaches ..................................................................................... 141

3.8. Leveraging and Strengthening the Private Market: Challenges and Solutions  ..........141

Tribal/TDHE Survey Findings About Leveraging .........................................................................142

Site Visit Responses, Examples of Leveraging, and Promising Approaches .....................142

3.9. Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................................147

System Performance Under NAHASDA ...........................................................................................147

Recommendations for Improving Performance Based on the Findings of This Study..150

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

ix

Monitoring AIAN Housing and Socioeconomic Conditions More Effectively .................. 151

The Changing Circumstances of American Indians and Alaska Natives:

National Review  ............................................................................................................................................. 152

The Changing Circumstances of American Indians and Alaska Natives: Housing

Conditions and Needs in Indian Country  .......................................................................................... 153

Analysis for Individual Tribal Areas  ...................................................................................................... 154

Glossary ................................................................................................................155

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations  ...............................................................159

References ............................................................................................................160

Additional Reading .............................................................................................167

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

x

List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES.1 - Poverty Rates, 2006-10 ............................................................................................................ xvii

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas and United States .......................... xix

Exhibit ES.3 - Overcrowded Households in Tribal Areas and United States ............................... xxi

Exhibit ES.4 - Amount of IHBG Funds Awarded, 1998 to 2014 ......................................................... xxi i

Exhibit Intro.1 - Research Topic, by Data Source ....................................................................................... 6

Exhibit Intro.2 - List of Tribes Participating in the Household Survey ............................................ 8

Exhibit Intro.3 - Location of Tribal Areas ....................................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 1.21 - American Indian and Alaska Native Population, 1890 to 2030 .............................. 16

Exhibit 1.22 - Trends in AIAN-Alone and Hispanic Populations, 1980 to 2010 ........................... 17

Exhibit 1.23 -AIAN Population Growth, 2000-2010, by Geographic Area .................................... 18

Exhibit 1.24 - Population and Characteristics of AIAN Tribal Areas, 2010 .................................... 19

Exhibit 1.25 - 2000-2010 Population Change in Tribal Areas ............................................................. 20

Exhibit 1.26 - Tribal Area Growth in Total AIAN Population (AIAN-Alone + Multiracial),

2000-2010 ................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Exhibit 1.31 - Share of Population by Age Group and Race, 2010 ..................................................... 23

Exhibit 1.32 - Gap Between AIAN and Non-AIAN Population  Under 18 and 62 and

Older by Area Type, 2010 ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Exhibit 1.33 - Average Household Size by Race and Area Type, 2010 ........................................... 25

Exhibit 1.34 - AIAN Households by Household Type, 1990 and 2010 ............................................. 27

Exhibit 1.35 - AIAN and Non-AIAN Households by Household Type, 2010 ................................. 28

Exhibit 1.36 - Share of Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10 .. 30

Exhibit 1.37 - AIAN Employment Indicators by Study Region and Area Type, 2006–10 ...... 32

Exhibit 1.38 - Employment Indicators by Race  for Population 16 and Over, 2006–10 .......... 33

Exhibit 1.39 - Poverty Rates, 2006-10 ............................................................................................................ 35

Exhibit 1.310 - Poverty Rates by Age and Race, 2006–10 .................................................................... 36

Exhibit 1.311 - AIAN Economic Indicators, 2008 to 2010 ....................................................................... 38

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xi

Exhibit 1.41 - Employment Trends in AIAN Counties from 2000 to 2010 ..................................... 42

Exhibit 1.42 - Employment in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000,

2007 and 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................... 43

Exhibit 1.43 - Employment Trends in  AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region,

2000 to 2010 .............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Exhibit 1.44 - Gaming Operations by Revenue Size Category, 2011 ................................................. 45

Exhibit 1.51 - Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity ....................................................................... 48

Exhibit 1.52 - Correlation Matrix: Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity .............................. 50

Exhibit 1.53 - Highest and Lowest Percent Change in Population, 2000-2010 ......................... 51

Exhibit 1.54 - Highest and Lowest Percent of Population Employed in the Private

Sector, 2006 to 2010 ............................................................................................................................................... 51

Exhibit 1.55 - Highest and Lowest Percent of Households Overcrowded, 2006 to 2010 ..... 52

Exhibit 1.56 - Highest and Lowest Percent of Households Paying More Than 30 Percent

of Income for Housing, 2006 to 2010 ............................................................................................................. 52

Exhibit 1.57 - Diversity Among Tribal Areas, Regression Results ...................................................... 53

Exhibit 2.21 - Percent Change in Housing Units by Area Type and Study Region, 2000

to 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 57

Exhibit 2.22 - Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010 ................................................................. 58

Exhibit 2.23 - Housing Market Indicators by Area Type and Study Region, 2000

to 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 59

Exhibit 2.24 - Tenure, AIAN-Alone Households in Tribal Areas, 2000-2010 ............................... 60

Exhibit 2.25 - AIAN-Alone Housing Structure Type by Area Type, 2006–10 .............................. 62

Exhibit 2.31 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas ................................................................... 66

Exhibit 2.32 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas ............................ 67

Exhibit 2.33 - Housing Problem Summary, Census/ACS Data ........................................................... 69

Exhibit 2.34 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas by

Region (ACS 2006-10) ........................................................................................................................................... 71

Exhibit 2.35 - Needs to Address Overcrowding and Physical Deficiencies ................................. 75

Exhibit 2.41 - Tribal Area Households by Type ........................................................................................... 79

Exhibit 2.42 - Core Family Households by Type ........................................................................................ 80

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xii

Exhibit 2.43 - Extended Households by Type ............................................................................................ 81

Exhibit 2.44 - Percent of Tribal Households that are Overcrowded by Presence of

Cost Burden and Household Type, 2013-2015   ......................................................................................... 82

Exhibit 2.45 - Estimating the Size of the Doubled Up Population .................................................... 85

Exhibit 2.51 - Homeownership ............................................................................................................................ 87

Exhibit 2.52 - Homeownership Preference as Reported on the Tribal/TDHE Survey ............ 88

Exhibit 2.53 -  Barriers to Obtaining a Mortgage ...................................................................................... 89

Exhibit 2.54  - Barriers to Homeownership Reported by Renters .................................................... 90

Exhibit 3.21 - Amount of IHBG Funds Awarded, 1998 to 2014 ........................................................... 100

Exhibit 3.22 - NAHASDA Funding by Source, Through 2013 .............................................................. 102

Exhibit 3.23 - IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014 ........................................................................ 103

Exhibit 3.24 - Analysis of IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014 ............................................... 105

Exhibit 3.31 - Change in the FCAS (1937 Act) Housing Stock ............................................................ 108

Exhibit 3.32 - FCAS Housing Units 2014 and 2003-2014 Change, by Region ............................ 109

Exhibit 3.33 - Housing Production Under NAHASDA, 1998-2014 .................................................... 111

Exhibit 3.34 - IHBG Funded Housing Production, 2007-2014 ............................................................ 112

Exhibit 3.35 - Cumulative Assisted Units, 2010 and 2014 ..................................................................... 114

Exhibit 3.36 - Grantee Reported Condition of HUD Assisted Housing, 2012 .............................. 115

Exhibit 3.37 - Condition of FCAS (1937 Act) Housing by Region, 2012 ......................................... 116

Exhibit 3.41 - IHBG Grantees and Tribal Beneficiaries, FY 2014  ....................................................... 117

Exhibit 3.42 -Training Needs ................................................................................................................................ 122

Exhibit 3.61 - Barriers to New Housing Development Most Frequently Reported by

Tribes/TDHEs .............................................................................................................................................................. 127

Exhibit 3.62 - Factors Mentioned by Sites that Affect Development Costs ................................ 128

Exhibit 3.63 - Housing Maintenance Challenges Most Frequently Reported by

Tribes/TDHEs, by Type of Housing .................................................................................................................. 132

Exhibit 3.71 - Understanding Tribal Trust Land Mortgage Lending ................................................. 135

Exhibit 3.72 - Map of Eligible Areas for Section 184 Loans .................................................................. 137

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xiii

Technical Appendixes

Published separately in volume 2.

Appendix A. Description of Data Sources

Appendix B. Geographic Area Definitions and Methodology

Appendix C. Regression Analysis Methodology

Appendix D. Data Collection Instruments and Procedures

Appendix E. Sampling, Survey Response, and Weighting

Appendix F. Survey Response Rate by Tribe

Appendix G. Site Selection Memo

Appendix H. Site Visit Respondents by Type

Appendix I. Household Survey and Tribal/TDHE Survey Summary Tables

Appendix J. Major National Reports on Native American Housing Needs

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xiv

Executive Summary

this framework. Congress has provided

Executive Summary

a fairly consistent level of funding for its

primary delivery mechanism, the Indian

Housing Block Grant (IHBG), administered by

During the past two decades, although

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

improvements have been made, the

Development (HUD)—in nominal terms—

overcrowding and physical housing

but this flow has been seriously eroded by

problems of American Indians and Alaska

inflation. Inadequate funding appears to be a

Natives (AIANs) living on reservations and

major constraint at this point.

other tribal areas remain strikingly more

severe than those of other Americans.

Regardless of the extent to which previous

Particular circumstances of tribal areas—

funding levels can be restored, however,

remoteness, lack of infrastructure, and

HUD and other federal agencies need to

complex legal and other constraints related

assist and encourage the tribes to better

to land ownership—make it extremely

leverage the assistance they receive and

difficult to improve housing conditions in

to foster both economic development and

those areas, although it is important to point

housing improvement. In the move toward

out that tribal area housing problems and

self-determination, many tribes have recently

the barriers to addressing them are much

been innovative in making progress in both

more challenging in some locations and

areas. The agencies need to build on these

regions of the country than in others.

examples, working with the tribes to catalyze

further progress, especial y in tribal areas

The nation’s central legal framework for

where current problems are most severe.

providing housing assistance in Indian

Country—the Native American Housing

This main final report includes the principal

Assistance and Self-Determination Act

findings and conclusions of the Assessment

(NAHASDA) of 1996, which gives the tribes

of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native

primary responsibility for the use of federal

Hawai an Housing Needs, a congressional y

and other assistance in addressing these

mandated study funded by HUD and

problems—appears to be working more

carried out by the Urban Institute and its

effectively than did the previous approach.

subcontractors, Econometrica, Inc.; NORC

Although the need for further capacity

at the University of Chicago; and Support

improvements remains widespread, the

Services International, Inc.1

tribes have demonstrated the ability to

construct and rehabilitate housing for low-

Conducted between 2011 and 2016, this

income families at substantial levels under

study is the largest study of AIAN housing

1

This study produced four additional reports (1) on the housing needs of Native Hawaiians (Corey et al., 2016), (2) on the circumstances of the AIAN population living in urban areas (Levy et al., 2016), (3) on mortgage lending on tribal lands (Listokin et al., 2016), and (4) an interim report that summarized census data on the changing circumstances of the AIAN population across the country (Pettit et al., 2014).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xv

Executive Summary

conditions and policies ever undertaken in

increase of 27 percent. In 2010, this population

Indian Country.2 It entailed in-person surveys

included 2.6 mil ion who said they belonged

of individual households in their homes in

to other racial groups in addition to AIAN (the

a representative sample of 38 tribal areas

“AIAN multirace” population). This group grew

(1,340 completed interviews), a large-scale

most rapidly in urban areas outside Indian

telephone survey of the tribal departments

Country and grew much more rapidly overal

and other local entities that administer the

than those who identified AIAN as their only

IHBG for the tribes (Tribal/Tribal y Designated

race (the “AIAN-alone” population). Some in

Housing Entity [TDHE] Survey, 110 completed

the AIAN policy community, however, have

interviews), and interviews with a broader

suggested that a significant number in the

array of local leaders in site visits to 22 of

multirace group living in urban areas may not

the sampled areas. The study also entailed

be members of the recognized tribes that are

extensive analysis of data from the U.S.

NAHASDA’s intended beneficiaries.

Census Bureau and other secondary sources.

It has also been suggested, however, that a

This report focuses on conditions in the 617

high percentage of both the AIAN multiracial

AIAN tribal areas defined by the U.S. Census

and AIAN-alone populations that live in

Bureau and on the 526 counties that contain

tribal areas and their surrounding counties

or immediately surround them. The report

are likely to be tribal members. Their growth

has three parts: (1) Demographic, Social, and

has been somewhat slower, but it is stil

Economic Conditions; (2) Housing Conditions

much stronger than the U.S. population

and Needs; and (3) Housing Policies and

growth overal . The AIAN-alone population

Programs.

grew much faster in tribal areas and the

surrounding counties than it did in the rest

Demographic, Social,

of the nation—by 10 versus 5 percent. From

and Economic Conditions

2000 to 2010, the total AIAN population

(AIAN-alone plus AIAN multirace) grew by 12

Three things about a population are most

percent in the tribal areas and by 31 percent

critical to understanding its demand for and

in the surrounding counties (compared with

effects on housing conditions: (1) whether it

the overall U.S. growth rate of 10 percent). By

is growing, (2) how its economic wel -being

2010, the total AIAN population had reached

compares with that of other groups, and (3)

1.15 mil ion in tribal areas and 1.32 mil ion in

whether its socioeconomic conditions are

the surrounding counties.

internal y uniform or diverse.

The overall economic well-being of

The AIAN population in tribal areas and

the AIAN population remains generally

their surrounding counties continues to

more problematic than that of non-

grow rapidly. Patterns suggest that links

AIANs almost everywhere and is worse

to traditional tribal areas and cultures

for AIANs in tribal areas than for AIANs

remain strong—most who identify AIAN

living in other parts of the country.

as their only race are remaining on tribal

land or staying close to tribal areas

For example, the American Community

rather than moving to distant cities.

Survey (ACS) shows that, compared with a

U.S. average poverty rate of 18 percent in the

Nationwide, the number of people who

2006-to-2010 period, AIAN-alone poverty

identified their race as AIAN grew from 4.1

rates stood at 22 percent in metropolitan

mil ion in 2000 to 5.2 mil ion in 2010—an

2  The term Indian Country is used in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native villages, and is not used as a legal term in this report.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xvi

Executive Summary

counties outside Indian Country, 28 percent

thereby improving local accountability and

in the surrounding counties, and 32 percent

encouraging tribal and non-tribal investments

in tribal areas (exhibit ES.1). The latter figure

in human and other capital” (Harvard Project

is almost double (1.8 times) the U.S. average.

on American Indian Economic Development,

2008: 111). New economic activity includes

Notable advances in socioeconomic

large-scale investments by the tribes and a

conditions in many tribal areas have

variety of businesses started by private tribal

occurred during the past two decades,

members. Gaming has played a part in this

however, offering promising models

economic activity—substantial y increasing

for change. These advances include

wealth in some places—but it has not been

improvements in the capacity of the

the primary driver of development in most

people (higher educational attainment)

areas and has an uncertain future as a basis

and vigorous initiatives by tribes

for economic development.

exercising their self-determination to

drive economic development.

An important understanding for policy

is that conditions in tribal areas are

From 2000 to 2006-2010 the share of

markedly diverse across the nation.

AIAN adults living in tribal areas that had a

bachelor’s degree or higher went up only

One example indicator that illustrates this

slightly, from 7.8 to 9.2 percent, but this

point is the share of a tribal area’s population

increase narrowed the gap in educational

that has a private-sector job. The measure is

attainment in tribal areas as compared to the

positively correlated with population growth

non-AIAN population during that period. Since

and other indicators of economic wel -

1990, researchers have seen increasing tribal

being and inversely correlated with remote

efforts to create environments supportive of

locations. In the top quarter of the 213

private entrepreneurship—“tribes investing

largest tribal areas3 by this measure, private

in their own capacities to govern and

employees accounted for 17 percent or more

3  These 213 are tribal areas the Census Bureau considers large enough to permit the publication of independent estimates for a large number of ACS variables. Together, they account for 89 percent of the total 2010 AIAN-alone population in all tribal areas.

Exhibit ES.

Exhibit ES. 1 - Po

1 - Pov v

ert erty Ra

y Rat tes, 2006-

es, 2006-10 10

AIAN Population

Tribal Areas

0.32

Surrounding Counties

0.28

Other Metropolitan areas

0.22

Other Non-metropolitan areas

0.26

United States – All Races

0.18

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Poverty Rate

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–10 Five-Year Estimates

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xvii

Executive Summary

of the population. In the bottom quarter,

the Census Bureau does not collect any

they accounted for less than 7 percent. The

data on three of these problems—heating,

top quarter is spread across many parts of

electrical, or condition deficiencies—it does

the country, although a distinct cluster is in

collect data on all the other indicators and

Oklahoma. Regarding the bottom quarter,

has the benefit of supporting comparisons

large clusters are located in the poorest

over time and between geographies, which,

regions of Indian Country: Arizona/New

because of sample size limitations, cannot

Mexico, the Plains and northwest Alaska.

be done with the household survey data.

Although the distinction between public-

Data from this project’s household

and private-sector jobs is somewhat

survey show that physical housing

blurred by tribal and state definitions of

problems for AIAN households in tribal

certain tribal enterprises, this example does

areas remain much more severe than

serve to highlight economic diversity in

for U.S. households, on average, in

Indian Country.

almost all categories. The share of AIAN

Housing Conditions and Needs

households in tribal areas with a cost

burden problem, however, is comparable

The central motivation for this study was to

with that of all U.S. households.

determine the extent of housing problems

and needs in Indian Country. This study

Physical housing problems have declined

follows standards that HUD uses in its

enough to be negligible for the United

work on worst case housing needs. These

States, on average—incidences typically

standards start with physical problems in

of 1 to 2 percent—but not for American

three categories:

Indians and Alaska Natives in tribal areas.

For example, 2013 American Housing

1.  Systems deficiencies—plumbing, kitchen,

Survey data show the U.S. average share of

heating, and electrical.

households with plumbing deficiencies was

1 percent, but this study’s household survey

2. Condition problems, including structural

shows the share for AIAN populations

deficiencies, holes in the wal , and so forth.

in tribal areas was 6 percent; the share

3. Overcrowding, defined by having more

with heating deficiencies was 2 percent

than one person per room.

for the United States but 12 percent for

AIANs in tribal areas; the share that was

The analysis then addresses the

overcrowded was 2 percent for the United

most rapidly growing problem nearly

States but 16 percent for AIANs in tribal

everywhere—affordability, or  cost burden—

areas (exhibit ES.2). The only problems

defined as when households are paying

in which the incidences were nearly the

more than 30 percent of their income for

same were electrical deficiencies (about

housing expenses.

1 percent for both) and cost burden (36

percent for the United States versus 38

Findings are based on two sources of

percent in tribal areas).

information. The first source is this project’s

completed household survey—a national y

Adding up these measures would yield

representative snapshot of tribal areas as of

an inaccurate estimate of the number of

the time period 2013 to 2015, which provides

households affected by one or more of

data on all these problems. The second

these problems, because it would involve

source is U.S. Census Bureau data. Although

double counting (a single household, for

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xviii

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Pr

Exhibit ES.2 - Individual Housing Pr oblems in T

oblems in T ribal Ar

ribal Ar

eas and Unit

eas and Unit

ed Sta

ed States tes

12.0

12

10

8

6.6

6

5.6

AIAN in Tribal Areas

4

Total US

2

1.7

1.3

1.4

1.1

0.1

Percent of AIAN alone households with incomplete facilities

0

Plumbing

Kitchen

Electrical

Heating

Physical Problems

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013.

example, might have a cost burden problem

of AIAN households had one or more

plus a kitchen or plumbing deficiency and

identified housing problems of any kind

also be overcrowded, and so forth). This

(compared with 40 percent of the U.S.

study also accordingly calculated incidences

households overall).

in mutual y exclusive categories.

Any estimate of the amount of new

These calculations show that 10 percent of

housing required to address the needs of

AIAN tribal area households had plumbing

a population must be based on a set of

and/or kitchen deficiencies. Another

assumptions, and those assumptions are

13 percent that did not have plumbing

always open to question and alternative

or kitchen deficiencies had some mix

formulations. The assumptions developed

of heating, electrical, and/or condition

by the research team for this study

problems, and another 11 percent that did

indicate that, as of the 2013–2015 period,

not have any of the previous problems were

it would have been necessary to build

overcrowded. Final y, for another 23 percent,

around 33,000 new units to eliminate

cost burden was their only problem.

the overcrowding of the AIAN population

in tribal areas and another 35,000 new

Altogether, then, 34 percent of AIAN

units to replace units that were severely

households had one or more physical

physically inadequate, yielding a total need

problems compared with only 7 percent

of around 68,000 new units.

for U.S. households, on average. Including

the cost burden-only measure, 57 percent

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xix

Executive Summary

Census/ACS data also confirm that

percent of those households that had

physical housing problems for AIAN

physical housing problems.

households in tribal areas remain much

The shares with cost burden-only problems

more severe than for U.S. households,

are higher in other regions. In fact, across

on average. They also show that,

tribal areas, the incidence of cost burden

for low-income AIAN households in

problems was inversely related to the

tribal areas, the incidence of physical

incidence of overcrowding and other

problems is much higher (by about 40

physical problems; in other words, places

percent) than for the average AIAN

with the most serious overcrowding

household in tribal areas. Finally, they

problems general y had among the lowest

show that marked differences exist

cost burden problems, and vice versa.

in the severity of these problems in

different regions and locations. Cost

Among the 213 largest tribal areas,

burden problems, however, have grown

the quarter with the highest levels of

since 1990 and their locations appear

overcrowding—all more than 18 percent—

to be inversely correlated with those of

was mostly in the poorest regions—the

physical problems.

Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska.

By contrast, the quarter with the lowest

The analysis uses data from the ACS for

overcrowding—all at less than 4.5 percent—

the 2006-to-2010 period (the period just

was, in general, in places that came out

before the housing collapse and the Great

among the highest in terms of private-sector

Recession), remembering that the only

employment, as discussed earlier.

physical problems covered by these data

are plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and

This study generally confirms what has

overcrowding. The data show that one or

become the conventional wisdom about

more of these physical problems affected

homelessness in Indian Country; namely

13 percent of AIAN households in tribal

that, in tribal areas, homelessness mostly

areas. This number is much higher—by three

translates into overcrowding rather than

times—than the comparable number for al

having people sleeping on the street.

U.S. households at that time—4 percent.

The study estimates that, at the time

The share of low-income AIAN households

of the household survey in 2013–2015,

(those with incomes that are less than 80

between 42,000 and 85,000 people in

percent of the local median) in tribal areas

tribal areas were staying with friends or

with physical problems was much more

relatives only because they had no place

severe: 18 percent, almost 40 percent more

of their own; that is, they were homeless.

than the AIAN tribal area average.

It is general y understood that AIAN families

Substantial variations occurred in the

in tribal areas who do have housing tend

incidence of these problems by region.

to take in family members and others who

Physical problems were, by far, the most

do not have a place to stay. The tribal/

serious in three of the study regions—the

TDHE survey and site visit interviews

Plains, Arizona/New Mexico, and Alaska

general y support this conclusion as does the

(which reaches a high of 36 percent, three

household survey (exhibit ES.3). According

times the all-tribal area average of 13

to the household survey, 19 percent of

percent). These three regions accounted

household heads said they had more

for 44 percent of all AIAN households in

household members than could live in their

tribal areas, but they accounted for 73

unit comfortably (somewhat more than the 16

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xx

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.3 - Ov

Exhibit ES.3 - Over er

cro cr

w owded households in T

ded Households in T ribal Ar

ribal Ar

eas and Unit

eas and Unit

ed Sta

ed States tes

20

15.9

15

10

5

2.2

Percent of households experiencing overcrowding

0

AIAN in Tribal Areas

Total US

Population

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013.

percent that were overcrowded by the HUD

This study confirms that a strong

standard) and 17 percent said they did have

preference remains for homeownership

some household members that were there

in tribal areas. The homeownership rate

only because they had no other place to stay.

in tribal areas is already high, but many

households are renters, and nearly all

Very few of the heads of these households

want to become homeowners. They

(19 percent) said they would ask these

face notable barriers, however, in

people to leave, but the vast majority (80

achieving that goal.

percent) of the people involved would like

to get a place of their own if they could.

This study’s household survey reports that

This 17 percent of households represents

68 percent of AIAN households in tribal areas

the first sample-based estimate ever made

were homeowners in 2013–2015. It also reports

related to this form of homelessness in

that 90 percent of renters would prefer to

tribal areas nationwide. Further, this study

own their own home (and 90 percent of them

estimates that the number of people in

said they would contribute their own labor if it

these households with no place else to stay

would enable them to do so).

(that is, the doubled-up homeless) totaled

Of current homeowners responding to

between 42,000 and 85,000—between 3.6

the household survey, 8 percent had been

and 7.2 percent of the total 2013–2015 AIAN

denied a mortgage, and 9 percent of renters

population in tribal areas.

who had applied for a mortgage had been

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xxi

Executive Summary

turned down. Both groups mentioned that

Criticisms included overly complex

the most common reason for being denied

procedures, a lack of flexibility, coordination

a mortgage was a low credit score or lack

problems, and the lack of trained personnel.

of a credit history. The next most common

Underlying these criticisms was deeper

reason that renters mentioned was not

dissatisfaction with the extent to which

having a sufficient downpayment.

HUD controlled these programs, giving

tribal leaders insufficient influence over

Those who had never applied for a

program planning and operations.

mortgage also experienced barriers to

homeownership. This group of households

Recognizing these problems, in an era in

mentioned additional barriers that include

which self-determination had become the

not having sufficient savings, not having a

central theme of U.S. Native American

regular source of income, and lack of access

policy, Congress replaced this approach

to a mortgage lender. Of the households

with a new framework in 1996: the Native

that were interested in homeownership

American Housing Assistance and Self-

but had never applied for a mortgage, 29

Determination Act. NAHASDA brought

percent also mentioned that they did not

a new funding delivery mechanism—the

know how to buy a home or were unfamiliar

Indian Housing Block Grant—allocated to

with the loan application process, lending

tribes via a needs-based formula. Funds are

terms, or real estate transactions.

given directly to the tribes, rather than to

IHAs. The tribal governments may run the

Housing Policies and Programs

program themselves or assign operating

responsibility to a Tribal y Designated

The U.S. government has a general trust

Housing Entity that reports to them. The

obligation to promote the welfare of AIAN

tribes must prepare an Indian Housing Plan

populations by supplying housing along

(IHP) and annual performance reports

with other services on reservations and

and submit them to HUD’s Office of

other tribal areas. Notable progress began

Native American Programs (ONAP), which

to be made toward this end in housing

is responsible for overall performance

in the 1960s, with expanded production

monitoring and quality control.

under two programs implemented under

provisions of the Housing Act of 1937: (1)

IHBG funding must cover continuing support

the low-rent program (operated like public

for the remaining stock funded under the

housing elsewhere in the nation) and (2)

1937 Act programs—the Formula Current

the Mutual Help program (a lease-purchase

Assisted Stock (FCAS)—and also assisted

type of homeownership program). HUD

housing development (new construction,

administered these programs and a network

acquisition, and rehabilitation), planning and

of local Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs)

administration, and an array of activities that

implemented them on the ground, operating

support affordable housing and its residents

under strong HUD oversight.

(for example, housing counseling, energy

audits, crime prevention, and safety).

By 1990, the IHAs had developed 67,400

assisted housing units, a number equal to

Congress has provided a fairly consistent

42 percent of all low-income households

level of funding for the IHBG in nominal

living in Indian Country at the time.

terms, but this flow has been seriously

Dissatisfaction with these programs,

eroded by inflation. Funding for housing

however, was present on several levels.

development has been especially hard hit.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xxii

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

Since 1998, the first year that IHBG became

During the 1998-to-2006 period, total

operational, Congress has provided a

expenditures averaged $636 mil ion annual y

consistent level of funding annually in

in constant 1998 dollars. Mostly because

nominal terms—an average of about

of the effects of inflation, the amount had

$667 million per year from 1998 through

declined to an average of $429 mil ion per

2014. During 17 years, however, inflation

year during the 2011-to-2014 period—a

has seriously eroded that level. The 2014

decline of almost exactly one-third. During

amount ($637 million in nominal dollars)

the 2011-to-2014 period, the tribes were

represented only $440 million in 1998

able to spend only $128 mil ion per year for

purchasing power (exhibit ES.4).

housing development in 1998 dollars, about

one-half of the $244 mil ion the program

Funding for housing development has

had been able to spend on housing during

been especially hard hit because other

the 1998-to-2006 period.

categories of expenditures (including

FCAS support) involve comparatively

The tribes have demonstrated the

fixed costs and are very hard to reduce

capacity to construct and rehabilitate

proportionally as inflation takes its

housing for low-income families at

toll. Amounts available for housing

substantial levels under the NAHASDA

development are squeezed as a result.

framework. Their ability to effectively

Exhibit ES.4 - Amoun

Exhibit ES.4 - Amoun t of IHBG F

t of IHBG F unds A

unds Aw w

ar arded, 1998 t

ded, 1998 t

o 20

o 2014 14

800

700

600

)

500

Constant 1998 Dollars

400

Nominal Dollars

300

1998 Dollars (in millions

200

100

0

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Year

Source: HUD ONAP LOCCS Report, current as of June 1, 2015.

Note: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $504,201,481 in IHBG funding.

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxiii

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

use an unexpected injection of funding

within 3 years. The tribes were able to spend

under the American Recovery and

virtual y all (more than 99 percent) of these

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009

funds consistent with that requirement,

toward these ends in a very limited time

yielding an additional 1,954 new

period is particularly strong evidence

construction units and 13,338 rehabilitated

supporting this conclusion.

units between 2009 and 2012.

What has happened to the quantity of

Under the regular IHBG allocations,

assisted housing in Indian Country since

however, the constant dollar funding

NAHASDA was enacted? First, as would

reductions noted previously caused a

be expected, a decline has occurred in

different pattern of production during the

the number of FCAS (1937 Act) units

2011-to-2014 period. Tribes responded by

available—from 72,000 in 2003 to

cutting back new construction (to 2,000

49,000 in 2014. Nearly all of this loss was

units per year) and expanding the number

accounted for by conveyances of Mutual

of rehabilitated units (to 4,800 per year),

Help units to their residents (as called for

presumably judging that an emphasis on

in the program design) rather than by

rehabilitation, given the overall funding

demolition. Losses to the low-rent program

constraint, would allow them to reach a

inventory have been negligible.

larger share of the families in need.

These reductions in older FCAS units have

Since the enactment of NAHASDA, large

been more than made up for, however,

increases have occurred in the number

by new production under the IHBG. In its

of HUD grantees and in the share

early years (from 1998 through 2006), the

of all programs being administered

IHBG program supported the building of

directly by tribal governments. Many

an average of 1,900 new assisted housing

indications suggest that these programs

units per year and the rehabilitating of an

generally are meeting basic functional

additional 2,700 units annual y. Production

expectations and that the tribes prefer

then increased to peak levels in the 2007-

operations under NAHASDA to the

to-2010 period (2,400 new units and 4,100

previous system.

rehabilitated units per year). One question

In 1995, HUD assistance in Indian Country

raised before the enactment of NAHASDA

was being administered by 187 IHAs, serving

was whether the tribes would be able to

467 tribes. In fiscal year 2014, 363 compliant

produce as much housing on their own

IHPs had been submitted to serve 563

as had occurred under the earlier HUD-

tribes. This project’s tribal/TDHE survey

directed system. These numbers give an

indicated that offices of tribal governments

answer clearly in the affirmative.

were administering 41 percent of these

This conclusion about tribal capacity is

programs and TDHEs were administering

strongly reinforced by what the tribes were

the rest (96 percent of the latter said they

able to do with an unexpected injection of

were then, or had been, IHAs).

additional funds from ARRA in 2009. ARRA

Despite concerns about administrative

provided $47.25 mil ion for IHBG activities

capacity, ONAP reports widespread

on top of the regular IHBG allocation, with

compliance with program requirements and

the proviso that funds would be recaptured

general ability to disburse funds rapidly.

if they were not obligated within 1 year of

The tribal/TDHE survey indicates that, for

the date they were made available and spent

most programs, the number of ful -time

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxiv

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

staff remained stable during the past 3

U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau

years (although, at 11 of 22 sites visited,

of Indian Affairs and HUD’s Low-Income

administrators said they were understaffed).

Housing Tax Credit program. Few

respondents named the Indian Community

Local administrators recognize that they

Development Block Grant program as a

have enhanced flexibility under NAHASDA

major program for their tribal area.

(for example, 83 percent of survey

respondents said it is easier to leverage

Although the flexibility of NAHASDA

private funds now). They indicated no call

enables tribes to design, develop, and

for any major overhaul of IHBG regulations,

operate their own affordable housing

although some changes were requested,

programs based on local needs, tribal

such as those pertaining to program

housing departments and TDHEs still

administration (58 percent) and developing

face significant challenges in carrying

new units (50 percent).

out their plans.

When asked about what they would like to

Almost all respondents to the tribal/TDHE

change, most respondents suggested they

survey indicated that development costs

would like to be able to offer assistance to

had increased during the past 3 years, with

families just above the eligibility line who,

40 percent saying costs had increased

even though somewhat better off, still

greatly and 57 percent saying costs had

cannot afford decent housing in tribal areas.

increased somewhat. In addition, 35 percent

Survey respondents also said they would

of tribal/TDHEs reported that development

like more training; priorities were for training

cost was a very serious constraint, and

in building maintenance, information/

another 15 percent said it was a fairly serious

computer systems, and case management

constraint in developing new housing. When

support in resident services.

asked to name the top three factors that

increase the cost of developing new housing,

Most tribes and TDHEs rely on partnerships

tribes/TDHEs cited the following barriers

to provide a broader array of services

most frequently: developing infrastructure

than would otherwise be possible and

(70 percent), availability of labor (39

on contractors to provide administrative

percent), lack of funds (34 percent), and

and building-related services. Although

acquiring or assembling land (30 percent).

contracting is a sound business strategy

Other challenges reported by tribes included

for accomplishing objectives with limited

risk of flooding, water shortages, and the

resources, in some cases, these relationships

aging of existing infrastructure.

appear to be necessary for reasons of

limited organizational capacity and staff

The availability of labor is affected because

capability, which are attributed to sparse

tribal housing agencies do not have enough

local populations, insufficient funding, and

construction activity to support construction

limited opportunities for staff training.

workers (either in-house employees or

contractors) on a consistent basis. This

Among the sites visited and the tribal/TDHE

scarcity of work results in the need for

survey respondents, most organizations

workers with the necessary skil s to travel

offer only housing assistance programs

outside the tribal area for work and then not

funded under the IHBG program. Among

be available when needed in the tribal area.

those that do offer other programs,

the most commonly cited were the

Land assembly and acquisition remain as

Housing Improvement Program of the

frequent problems that add to the cost

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxv

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

of development. The main source of this

Veterans Affairs Native American Direct

challenge is fractionated land, which is the

Loan Program. The Section 184 loan

result of allotments that have been divided

program, by providing lenders with a

among heirs through probate. Having many

100-percent guarantee for mortgages to

owners makes it hard to assemble large

AIAN borrowers originated on tribal trust

enough parcels for development. To solve this

land, essentially eliminates problems with

problem, a few tribes have initiated efforts to

the unique nature of tribal trust land used

buy back fractionated land or land adjacent

as collateral. Section 184 serves AIAN

to tribal lands. Other sites try to ensure that

borrowers both on and off trust lands.

the housing agency owns its own land.

Rather than tribal trust land issues, the

lenders interviewed in this study indicated

Survey respondents suggested that their

that mortgage lending on tribal trust land

biggest challenges in operating the rental

remains a time-consuming process that

program were tenants damaging their units

reduces the appeal of lending on tribal trust

(91 percent), controlling criminal activity (74

land, even with the federal guarantee. This

percent), and tenants not paying rent on

process is so long, in part, because of the

time (65 percent).

requirements under the Section 184 loan

program for tribes to develop and execute

A changing landscape exists regarding

leases for land on which the mortgaged

mortgage lending in Indian Country,

property is located. Therefore, lenders

with greater lending activity and a

indicate that they prefer to work with tribes

lessening of once seemingly intractable

that have the capacity to develop leases and

problems, such as those related to

get them approved relatively quickly.

tribal trust land.

The Helping Expedite and Advance

Originating mortgages on properties

Responsible Tribal Homeownership

located in Indian Country presents unique

(HEARTH) Act of 2012 is viewed as a

challenges that relate to the legal status

promising approach to assist tribes in

of lands on reservations; the remote

assembling land for development.

locations of reservations that inhibit the

development of an infrastructure that can

The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates an

support mortgage lending; a lack of cultural

alternative land leasing process. Tribes

understanding by mainstream lenders

are authorized to execute agricultural

of Native American attitudes toward the

and business leases of tribal trust lands

use of credit, particularly when used for

for a primary term of 25 years and up

a land transaction; and, possibly, lenders’

to two renewal terms of 25 years each

discrimination against Native American

without approval by the Secretary of the

mortgage applicants.

U.S. Department of the Interior, provided

governing tribal leasing regulations have

A number of programs have been

already been submitted to the Secretary.

developed to address the challenges of

Before 2012, tribes had to submit leases of

lending in Indian Country, including the

tribal land to the Secretary of the Interior

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee

for approval. Under the HEARTH Act, tribes

Program under the Housing and Community

make their own decisions about land leasing,

Development Act of 1992, as amended

exercising their right of self-determination.

by NAHASDA; Section 502 Direct Loan

Leveraging trust land was one goal expressed

Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture

by tribal officials, who were enthusiastic

Rural Housing); and U.S. Department of

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxvi

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

about the potential of the HEARTH Act to

This project was not asked to conduct a

break down barriers to leasing on tribal land.

formal evaluation of NAHASDA. Nonetheless,

it offers many findings pertinent to an

Tribes have developed programs

understanding of how programs are

for potential homebuyers, often in

working in the NAHASDA framework and of

partnership with nonprofit organizations

opportunities to improve performance.

and financial institutions.

When NAHASDA was enacted, some in the

In addition to having processing

Native American housing policy community,

issues, many potential borrowers have

including some appropriators and IHA

creditworthiness issues and insufficient

officials, expressed uncertainty about tribes’

incomes or savings to qualify for mortgages,

capacity to administer the new program

even those mortgages guaranteed under the

and avoid abuses when federal controls

Section 184 program that have more flexible

were reduced. This study shows that these

underwriting standards than do Federal

challenges have largely been addressed.

Housing Administration or conventional

loans. Lenders report that prepurchase

•  The tribes were able to establish new

counseling, particularly counseling

administrative entities and processes to

provided by organizations familiar with

administer the IHGB and related programs

the unique challenges of lending on tribal

fairly quickly after enactment.

trust land, is critical to getting borrowers

•  The new system (IHBG, the NAHASDA

mortgage ready. Moreover, downpayment

block grant) has proven it is able to

assistance programs can help borrowers

match or exceed the rate of assisted

with insufficient savings qualify for Section

housing production in Indian Country

184 program mortgages. Many tribes have

under the old approach (1937 Act

designed local programs to respond to

programs). Limits on funding are now a

these barriers to homeownership among

major constraint on production.

their members. The diversity of tribal

land requires that homebuyer education

•  This study could not provide much direct

be tailored to the unique needs of tribes.

evidence on the quality of IHBG housing

Topics addressed in homebuyer education

or costs per unit, but nothing indicates

programs include establishing credit and

that these measures under IHBG have

improving a low credit rating, understanding

been inadequate or different than those

the homebuying process, and responsibilities

produced under the old system.

of homeownership. A number of tribes also

offer downpayment assistance programs.

•  As hoped, the mix of housing types and

development patterns produced under

Conclusions and Recommendations

NAHASDA appears more sensitive to

cultural and other local determinants in

Although needs for capacity

individual tribal areas than was the case

improvement remain widespread,

under the old approach.

the housing assistance system

established under NAHASDA appears

•  Although far from ubiquitous, many

to be functioning reasonably well and

examples of leveraging and innovative

doing what it was intended to do. It

practice today could not have taken place

represents a marked improvement over

under the pre-NAHASDA system. Likewise

the previous approach.

substantial qualitative evidence indicates

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxvii

Executiv

Ex

e Summary

ecutiv

that processes are more efficient now

local economies and channeling resources to

than under the previous, more rule-bound

address unmet housing needs efficiently.

approach. In general, the tribes seem to

A new type of targeted approach is

be stepping up to the challenge of self-

recommended then—one that jointly

determination in housing.

addresses economic and housing

•  Qualitative evidence also supports the

development in tribal areas that are most

view that the system is now more broadly

distressed. Although HUD programs in tribal

accountable to tribal members—that tribal

areas have always had the twin purposes

members are able to participate more

of housing and economic development, a

through their tribal governments in planning

stronger focus on this intersection is needed.

and other programmatic decisionmaking.

This approach envisions movement toward

an ideal program, while maintaining the

•  Although they recommend

current IHBG program. In many cases, this

some changes, tribal leaders and

approach may involve helping the tribes

administrators almost uniformly prefer

make the fundamental institutional changes

operations under NAHASDA to the

that have been critical to establishing a

system that existed before.

dynamic market economy in tribal areas

elsewhere: emphasizing the rule of law in

Regardless of the extent to which

dispute resolution and other aspects of

previous funding levels can be restored,

tribal activity, separating politics from day-

HUD and other federal agencies need

to-day administration and business affairs,

to assist and encourage the tribes to

and creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy.

better leverage the assistance they

It would also include, however, practical

receive to generate both economic

technical assistance and training on the

development and housing improvement

specific design and operation of programs

in an integrated manner, particularly in

developed to support the new strategies.

the places that need it most.

Models would be developed based on

It is clear that the amount of federal housing

successful programs implemented in other

assistance provided to Indian Country to this

tribal areas but modified, as appropriate, to

point has not been sufficient to meet the

address cultural and other differences.

need. In addition, the flow of IHBG funding is

ONAP could play a leading role in this

now trending down in relation to this need in

effort. It has a solid track record of long-

real terms. At this time, insufficient funding,

established relationships helping tribes

more than administrative capacity, is the

achieve their housing objectives and could

major constraint on providing housing.

use reporting and technical assistance

In considering policy options, the diversity

activities to support efforts that combine

of conditions across tribal areas is of great

housing and economic development. ONAP

importance. Housing problems in some tribal

would need additional resources enabling it

areas are much more severe than in others.

to play an expanded role.

The focus must be on innovative technical

HUD should initiate a program to more

assistance and training that will encourage

frequently monitor housing and other

the tribes, especial y those most in need, to

conditions of the AIAN population

markedly enhance their own development

nationwide, primarily taking advantage

efforts—learning from other tribes that have

of the Census Bureau’s ACS.

been most successful in expanding their

HOUSING NEE

E D

E S O

D

F AMER

E ICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NAT

A I

T VES I

E N TRIBA

B L AREAS

xxviii

Executive Summary

HUD published its first comprehensive

of policies and programs. Two reports are

national assessment of AIAN housing

recommended in each reporting year.

conditions in 1996. Between that time and

1.  A report on conditions for AIAN

this study, 20 years later, all stakeholders

populations nationwide across al

concerned with housing conditions in

geographies. It would compare indicators

tribal areas have had little information on

for AIAN populations in tribal areas and

changing circumstances to guide their

surrounding counties with those in other

policy deliberations. The long time gap is

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

explained by the fact that this study was

No one else now regularly produces a

very expensive—$6.3 mil ion during 6 years.

report like this and it should be of great

With competing demands for research

value to the overall AIAN policy community.

resources, decisionmakers had a difficult time

mobilizing support for a study of this scope.

2. A report focused on tribal areas, with the

NAHASDA/HUD policy community as

The high cost of this study was driven

its primary audience. This report would

mostly by the challenging task of

examine trends in housing conditions,

conducting a reliable random sample

problems, and needs in tribal areas and also

household survey, particularly in tribal

program performance under NAHASDA.

areas, which often lack rural addressing in

many places and require intensive fieldwork

An additional need must be considered. In

to build sample frames. There are strong

the course of this study, many tribes said they

reasons to believe, however, that almost all

would like to develop much better data on

of the information that needs to be updated

housing conditions and other circumstances

for policymaking can be obtained without

on their own individual reservations to guide

a separate household survey. ACS data

program planning. This interest, in part, can

are now released every year, and, although

be met for the larger tribes (that is, where

sample sizes are too small to support

ACS sample sizes warrant) by sending them

reliable estimates for smaller tribal areas

standard situation profiles from the ACS

individually, they are ample to support

each year and encouraging tribal input

reports on most needed indicators for

regarding data presentations and formats. In

tribal areas in total by region and for larger

addition, HUD’s Office of Policy Development

tribal areas individually (as demonstrated

and Research should work with ONAP to

by the use of ACS data in this report). A

develop efficient guidelines and training

major increase in the national sample size

programs to help tribes (that can mount the

was implemented in 2011, so ACS data in

needed resources) conduct sample surveys

the future will be more reliable than is the

and use other available data to assess their

2006–2010 data used in this report.4

situations efficiently. This study’s household

survey is publicly available to tribes for their

It is recommended that HUD support

use, which is consistent with the intent of

studies that rely on decennial census and

NAHASDA to enhance tribal capacity and

ACS data in census years (for example,

self-determination.

2020, 2030) and on ACS data alone for

the intervening 5-year points (for example,

2015, 2025, 2035). The currency of the

data should make a greater contribution

to timely and cost-effective adaptations

4  This increase raised the national sample to 3.5 million addresses, up from 2.9 million in the 2000s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

xxix

Introduction

AIAN reservations and other tribal areas;

Introduction

(2) experiences of lenders under the Native

American Housing Assistance and Self-

Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996 and

Introduction to the Overall

key issues related to lending on and around

Assessment

AIAN reservations and other tribal areas;

(3) the situation for AIAN populations living

This document is the final report of

in other parts of the United States (mostly

the congressional y mandated national

urban); and (4) the situation for Native

Assessment of American Indian, Alaska

Hawaiians in Hawaii.

Native, and Native Hawai an Housing

Needs. The study was conducted for the

HUD recognized that the policy environment

Office of Policy Development and Research

and policy relevant conditions and trends are

(PD&R), U.S. Department of Housing and

different in each of these four topic areas. It

Urban Development (HUD), Contract No.

was also recognized that the audiences for

C-CHI-01092/GS-23F-8198H. Urban Institute

the research are different for each topic area.

staff conducted this work with support

After discussions with many interested parties,

from three subcontractors: (1) NORC at the

it was decided that readers and policymakers

University of Chicago; (2) Econometrica, Inc.;

would be served best by publishing four

and (3) Support Services International, Inc.

separate reports to convey the final results of

work under this contract.

The Urban Institute conducted a similar

assessment for HUD in 1996 (Kingsley et

•   Housing Needs of American Indians and

al., 1996). HUD’s statement of work noted

Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas (this report).

this earlier work and stated, “That report

This is the main, and final report, focusing

presented a complete overview of the

on circumstances, needs and policy in and

housing situation of most American Indians

around AIAN tribal areas (the areas that

and Alaska Natives. It is proposed that the

are the focus of NAHASDA and the Indian

current study update that work.”

Housing Block Grant—IHBG). It recasts

census data for those areas and presents

The Kingsley et al. (1996) study presented

the results from the two most important

measures showing that the housing problems

primary data collection efforts in this study:

of American Indians and Alaska Natives

(1) a major in-person survey of households in

(AIAN populations)5 were substantially

tribal areas and (2) a survey of tribal housing

more severe than those of non-Indians in

program administrators in those areas. It

all parts of America. It also showed that,

also presents policy and program reviews

although earlier HUD programs serving AIAN

related to NAHASDA/IHBG with information

households (now often referred to as the 1937

derived from interviews, document reviews,

Act programs) had indeed made important

and analysis of HUD management data

contributions to housing conditions, they

and also two of the surveys conducted

nonetheless had serious defects.

for this project. It contains some census

The current overall assessment had a broad

data on AIAN populations in urban areas,

mandate. The scope covered four main

but only to give perspective on what is

topic areas: (1) the situation on and around

happening in Indian Country.6

5  Matthew Snipp (1989: 36–40) explains why the phrase “American Indians and Alaska Natives” is the preferred racial designation for the populations that are the subject of this study (precise definitions consistent with census surveys are presented in section 2). This report also uses its acronym—AIAN—and sometimes uses the terms Native Americans and Indians to refer to this same population.

6  “Indian Country” is used in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native villages. The phrase “Indian Country”

is not used as a legal term in this report.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

1

Introduction

•   Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land.  This

The overall project produced one other

report presents detailed findings of the

report that already has been published and

lender study, which focused on mortgage

contains additional information, useful to the

lending in tribal areas—findings that

work as it was in progress.

are summarized in part 3 of this final

•   Interim Report.  The project’s interim

report. The report provides up-to-date

report,  Continuity and Change:

information about challenges that remain

Demographic, Socioeconomic and

for lenders when originating mortgages

Housing Conditions of American Indians

on reservations and other AIAN tribal

and Alaska Natives (Pettit et al., 2014),

areas. The findings draw from interviews

presented an overview analysis of the

conducted with lenders and other

circumstances of the AIAN population

mortgage market observers to determine

as of 2010 and how those circumstances

the factors that now affect tribal trust

have changed during the past two

lending volumes and to ascertain lender

decades. It relied primarily on data from

practices to facilitate such lending. This

products of the U.S. Census Bureau: the

study describes contemporary mortgage

decennial censuses of 2000 and 2010 and

program availability and activity in Indian

the American Community Survey (ACS)

Country (focusing on HUD’s Section 184

for various years in the 2000s.

loan guarantee program) and examines

how today’s lenders view challenges and

Work on this project began in December

incorporate best practices for mortgages

2010. Detailed designs were developed for

in Indian Country.

all components in the first half of 2011, and

preliminary research to support the interim

•   Housing Needs of American Indians

report was begun shortly after that. It was

and Alaska Natives in Urban Areas.  This

decided that the overall study would benefit

is a full separate report on the housing

from a series of formal, government-to-

situation of the AIAN populations living

government consultations about its content

on the U.S. mainland but outside of

and approach with tribal leaders across the

Indian Country. This work relies mainly

country before the other components of

on census data and presents information

the work were implemented. Consultation

from telephone surveys with urban Indian

sessions between tribal leaders and HUD

community center and social service

accordingly were held in each of the six area

agency staffs in 19 selected urban areas

offices of HUD’s Office of Native American

and in-person interviews and focus

Programs (ONAP) in the spring of 2012, and

groups involving relevant groups in 5

ideas for improving the study discussed in

selected case study cities.

those sessions were incorporated in revised

•   Housing Needs of Native Hawaiians.  This

research designs and implementation plans.

is a full separate report on the housing

The household survey in Hawaii was added

situation of Native Hawai ans in Hawai .

to the project’s scope of work in 2012.

It is based on a comprehensive review of

After its final review of project plans, the

census data for Hawai , interviews with

U.S. Office of Management and Budget

relevant policy leaders and program

(OMB) gave its approval to proceed

staffs in the state, and a sizeable survey of

with the project’s survey agenda (to be

families on the waiting list for housing on

explained in more detail in later sections) in

the Native Hawai an home lands.

September 2012. All surveys fielded under

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

2

Introduction

this project were completed successfully

with housing conditions for AIAN and non-

with solid response rates. The Hawaii survey

AIAN populations in other parts of the

was completed in September 2015 and

country. The broader charge of this report

fieldwork on all surveys related to the Indian

is to shed light on factors that interact to

Country components of the work were

shape housing needs and conditions and,

completed in December 2015.

in particular, to deepen understanding

of the influence of government policies

The first draft of this report was submitted

and programs. The main factors that

to HUD in May 2016 and subsequently

determine housing conditions and needs

reviewed by HUD staff, the project’s

are demographic and socioeconomic

Expert Panel (see discussion under

conditions and trends as shaped by the

acknowledgments), and a broad array of

historical and legal context, the cultural

representatives of the tribes whose areas

context, geographic factors, and the overall

were the locations for the household

economy and housing market.

surveys. This draft, revised in response to

all comments received, was submitted to

Federal programs and policies have been

HUD in October 2016, and after submission

developed in response to housing needs and

of data files and other closeout tasks, the

conditions, and substantial programmatic

full performance period under the contract

changes have occurred since the Kingsley et

ended in December 2016.

al. (1996) study. This is a dynamic system—

sociodemographic and contextual factors

Purpose and Content of This Report

affect housing conditions; federal programs

respond; and this, in turn, has an effect

The remainder of this introductory section

on socioeconomic conditions (housing

focuses on background information to

affordability, for example), infrastructure,

help readers better understand this report,

and housing conditions. Changes in

the final report on the housing problems

contextual factors and in housing conditions

and needs of the AIAN populations in

lead to adjustments in the federal response,

and around AIAN reservations and other

such as changes in the way housing

tribal areas. This section describes the

programs are funded. To adequately cover

substantive purposes and content of the

these topics, this report has three parts.

report. It is followed by a description of the

sources of information that were tapped

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and

to provide findings in each topical area.

Economic Conditions

The final section defines the geographical

subdivisions of the country for which data

Comparatively little nationwide research

are presented relating to each research topic.

has been conducted on trends in AIAN

wel -being in recent years, and this report

The central purpose of this report is

fil s an important gap in that regard. Part

to assess current housing conditions

1 reviews trends in demography, spatial

and quantify housing needs in AIAN

patterns, social and economic conditions,

communities. To do so, this report presents

and economic development, all critical to

and discusses findings from a nationally

understanding housing conditions (which

representative household survey and

are measured using a standard framework

other sources about housing conditions in

defining housing problems) and needs.

Indian Country, how those conditions have

After an introduction, section 1.2 discusses

changed over time, and how they compare

bases for defining AIAN populations

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

3

Introduction

and then reviews how those populations

problems and needs. It has nine sections:

have grown (overall and by subgroup

After an introduction (3.1), section 3.2

and geography), focusing on change

reviews the evolution of federal housing

from 1990 to 2010. Section 1.3 examines

assistance in Indian Country and IHBG

AIAN social and economic conditions

financing; section 3.3 presents data about

and trends, including a discussion of how

the HUD-assisted housing stock; section 3.4

the national AIAN population has fared

examines the administration of the IHBG

since the Great Recession). Section 1.4

in tribal areas and includes a discussion

reviews what is known about changes in

of the characteristics of the tribes and

the productive economies of tribal areas

Tribal y Designated Housing Entities (tribes/

(and their surrounding counties) in recent

[TDHEs]) that administer the program;

decades. The materials in the previous

section 3.5 discusses the contributions of

sections are adapted from this project’s

other housing and community development

interim report. Section 1.5, however, is new—

programs; section 3.6 focuses on challenges

offering analysis of the dramatic diversity

and solutions in IHBG housing development

of circumstances that exist for the AIAN

and management; section 3.7 examines

population across different tribal areas.

the status and performance of programs

to enhance mortgage lending; section

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

3.8 reviews experience in leveraging and

strengthening the private market for

Part 2 is the heart of this report. It starts

housing in and around tribal areas; and,

with an analysis of several indicators of

final y, section 3.9 summarizes what has

housing market conditions in tribal areas,

been learned about the overall impact of

including housing stock growth, vacancy

NAHASDA since its inception.

rates, and structure types (section 2.2).

It then addresses the central question

It is important to state that the mandate

of the assessment: What are the extent

for this study did not include a formal

and nature of AIAN housing problems

“evaluation” of NAHASDA. Given the nature

and needs (section 2.3)? This section

and complexity of the work undertaken under

begins by presenting the framework for

NAHASDA, a reliable full evaluation would be

assessment and then offers the relevant

almost impossible to carry out. Nonetheless,

measures, derived from census files and,

findings in part 3 have a great deal to say

more importantly, from the household

about how the component activities in

survey conducted for this study. It then

NAHASDA have been working, offering

discusses the perceptions of tribal area

findings and conclusions that should prove

residents about their housing, and analyzes

of value to federal and tribal officials in their

overcrowding and homelessness in Indian

efforts to improve program effectiveness.

Country in a way that has not been possible

before (section 2.4). The final section 2.5

Sources of Information

analyzes homeownership and mortgage

As described throughout, this report

lending in tribal areas.

used quantitative and qualitative methods

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

and multiple data sources to address all

components of this research agenda.

Part 3 turns attention to policies and

Information sources fall into three major

programs—the key levers that affect the

categories: (1) background interviews and

nation’s ability to address AIAN housing

literature reviews; (2) existing data sources,

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

4

Introduction

primarily U.S. Census Bureau products

Interviews also involved the members

and HUD administrative data files; and

of an Expert Panel (identified in the

(3) new data collected specifically for this

acknowledgments section), composed of

study. Individual sources are often used to

individuals with deep knowledge of trends

support two or more substantive elements

in the circumstances of Native Americans

of the research. This section describes each

(in tribal areas and in all other types of

source and notes the substantive section

locations), and/or programs and policies

in which it is used most intensively, and

pertaining to housing in Indian Country.

then refers to that description as may be

applicable in other locations. For example,

Data From Census Bureau Products

the most important use of the multisite,

and HUD Administrative Data Files

nationally representative household survey

Two major sources of existing data were

is in determining housing conditions and

used in this study. The first and most

needs, so it is discussed primarily in part

extensive data are from the U.S. Census

2, but it also supports findings in several

Bureau and included (1) both long-form

of the sections of part 3. Exhibit Intro.1

and short-form (SF1 and SF3) data from

is a matrix identifying a detailed list of

the 2000 decennial census; (2) data from

substantive topics covered by the research

the ACS—1- and 3-year data as of 2009

linked to the sources of information used in

for counties and larger areas, 2006–2010

examining each of them.

5-year data for AIAN areas and other

smaller geographies; (3) data from the 2010

Background Interviews and

decennial census (SF1 file for all relevant

Literature Reviews

geographies); and (4) data for selected

This study task entailed reviews of

areas from the American Housing Survey.

relevant research literature published

These census products have been the basis

since the Kingsley et al. (1996) study and

for findings in almost all sections of part

interviews with people knowledgeable

1 of this report and for a number of the

about conditions and trends in Indian

sections in part 2. Appendix A contains a

Country and about the evolution of the

more detailed description of the various U.S.

policy environment, particularly regarding

Census Bureau products used and how they

housing and housing services. This work

differ from each other. This appendix also

was undertaken as appropriate in all phases

includes a discussion of the quality of the

of this project.

data, including the undercount of American

Indians residing in tribal areas.

Relevant literature reviewed is identified

in the list of references at the end of this

The second category is composed of various

report. Interviewees included officials from

HUD administrative data files. These include

HUD (most particularly, from its Office

files maintained by ONAP, primarily ONAP’s

of Native American Programs—ONAP),

Performance Tracking Database (PTD)

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S.

on performance and financial information

Census Bureau. Interviewees also included

related to the IHBG program. The source

representatives of key interest groups (for

for this system is the Annual Performance

example, the National American Indian

Reports (APRs) submitted by all tribes

Housing Council (NAIHC) and the National

that are IHBG grantees. These data have

Congress of American Indians (NCAI).

been used primarily to support the findings

presented in part 3.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

5

Introduction

Exhibit Intro.1 - Research Topic, by Data Source

Data Sources And Respondents

Research Questions and

New Data Collection

Existing Data

Data Collection Topics

Telephone Survey

Tribal Area In-

Household Survey

Census and ACS

HUD Admin Data

Person Interviews

TDHEs

Lenders

Sample size

1,600 Total

120

30

8-10 Per Site

Not Applicable

Completed responses

1,340

110

14

188

Not Applicable

Scope

38 Tribal Areas*

National Sample

National Sample

22 Tribal Areas

Not Applicable

Demography, Geography, Economy

Population growth since 1996 study

X

X

X

Diversity in living conditions - changes over time

X

X

X

X

Social and economic conditions

X

X

X

X

X

Diversity in liviing conditions across tribal areas

X

X

X

X

Economic diversity across tribal areas/major industries

X

X

X

and employers

Effects of gaming

X

Housing Issues

Changes in living conditions since 1990 Census

X

X

X

X

X

Major housing problems and needs

X

X

X

X

Issues and conditions leading to greater housing needs

X

X

X

Appropriate standards for housing needs and problems

X

X

X

X

X

Types of housing structures; constraint on building types

X

X

X

Land use issues and practices

X

X

X

Assisted vs. unassisted units

X

X

X

X

Rental vs. Ownership

X

X

X

X

X

Lending issues and the financial crisis

X

X

X

Federal Issues/NAHASDA

Implications of NAHASDA on current housing stock and

X

X

living conditions

Effects of funding change on housing needs and quality

X

X

X

on leveraging opportunities

Effects of NAHASDA on housing needs —

X

X

X

X

# served, quality, crowding, affordability

HUD and other federal housing programs serving

X

X

X

X

tribal people

*40 tribal areas were originally selected but 2 were determined to be ineligible by HUD because they were not IHBG grantees.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

6

Introduction

New Data Collected Specifically for

The sample was selected to be

representative of tribes nationwide,

This Study

meaning that characteristics of the

Understanding what existing data can

population can be inferred from the

tell us about AIAN housing problems and

characteristics of the sample (see the text

needs is critical, but cannot substitute for

box, An Overview of Sampling). Fieldwork

learning about actual conditions on the

on the household survey was completed

ground reported directly by residents and

successfully in December 2015. The

program administrators.

weighted response rate was 60 percent, a

rate considered quite high for a survey of

The most important new data collection

this type.9 The results are presented and

effort in this project by far was a major

discussed in Parts 2 and 3 of this report.

in-person household survey in a sample

of AIAN tribal areas. This was one of the

The second most important new data

largest and most complex surveys ever

collection effort was a  telephone survey

undertaken in Indian Country. Special care

of TDHEs, the entities, including the tribes

was taken so that the process would not

themselves, that administer the IHBG

only be technically effective (to ensure

program under NAHASDA. A national

reliable results) but also be fully acceptable

sample of tribes/TDHEs in 120 tribal

to the tribes involved. Negotiations were

areas was selected, with one respondent

held with tribal leaders in each of the

for each sampled tribe/TDHE, but some

targeted sample of 38 tribal areas selected

were responsible for more than one

for the survey; in nine cases it was necessary

tribe/tribal area, resulting in 116 eligible

to obtain approval from the tribe’s

respondents. Interviews were completed

Institutional Review Board and also from

with 110 respondents, or 95 percent of the

the tribal government. All 38 tribes in the

sample. This survey was aimed at housing

sample ultimately agreed to participate.7

directors and managers that have hands-

on experience with programs and policies,

Samples of tribal member households8

and sought their opinions on changing

were then selected for interviews in each

housing problems and needs. The survey

sampled tribal area. Interviews were

was completed in July 2015 and results are

conducted with 1,340 households in their

presented and discussed primarily in part 3.

homes. NORC recruited, hired, and trained

tribal members to conduct these housing

The samples of sites that were the subjects

unit visits and interviews. The interviews

of the household and tribal/TDHE surveys

included “walk-through” observations of

were selected via one integrated probability

housing conditions and interviews with

sample design to produce reliable national

the head of household or their designated

estimates. In brief, this involved proportional

proxy, and were focused on how residents

stratification by region and size. Within

view their own housing conditions and their

each stratum, tribal areas were selected

views on assisted housing programs. Exhibit

using probability proportionate to size. This

Intro. 2 lists the tribes that participated in

process was used first to select the 120 tribal

the household survey.

areas to respond to the tribal/TDHE survey.

7  A sample of 40 tribal areas originally was selected, but HUD deemed that 2 were ineligible because they were not IHBG grantees.

8  Tribal member households were those households in which the owner/renter, their spouse, or custodial child age 17 or younger self-identified as Native American or Alaska Native (alone or multiracial).

9  A weighted response rate is reported for nationally representative surveys, because that is an average of the response rates according to where the population is located.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

7

Introduction

Exhibit Intro.2 - List of Tribes Participating in the Household Survey

Total Tribes: 38; Tribes in bold participated in site visits

North Central (4 Participating Tribes)

·        Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin

·         Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin

·         Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota White Earth Band

·         Red Lake band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota

Eastern (2 Participating Tribes)

·         Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina

·         Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina

Oklahoma (8 Participating Tribes)

·         Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma

·         Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma

·         Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

·         Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma

·         Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

·         Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma

·         Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

·         Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

Plains (7 Participating Tribes)

·         Arapahoe and Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

·         Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana

·         Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota

·         Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota

·         Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota

·         Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota

·         Omaha Tribe of Nebraska

Arizona - New Mexico (9 Participating Tribes)

·         Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona

·         Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, and  Utah

·         Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico

·         Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico

·         Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona

·         San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona

·         Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona

·         White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona

·         Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico

California – Nevada (1 Participating Tribe)

·         Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California

Pacific Northwest (4 Participating Tribes)

·         Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington

·         Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

·         Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington

·         Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation, Washington

Alaska (3 Participating Tribes)

·         Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove

·         Chickaloon Native Vil age

·         Native Vil age of Unalakleet

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

8

Introduction

The sites targeted for the household survey

interviews, separate from the tribal/TDHE

were a representative subsample of the 120.

survey, provided more extensive qualitative

information on perceptions of conditions

In addition to the two surveys described

and local institutional arrangements,

previously,  in-person interviews with tribal/

particularly as they relate to housing,

TDHE officials, tribal and community

housing problems and the implementation

leaders and program staff were conducted

of housing programs. In total, interviews

during site visits to a purposive sample of

were conducted with 188 individuals, an

22 of the 38 tribal areas that participated

average of 8-9 per site.

in the household survey. These onsite

Overview of Sampling

What is sampling? Sampling is a statistical method of obtaining representative data or

information from a population. Sampling is used when a census (that is, collecting data from every unit or person in a population) is cost prohibitive. As long as a sampling method is used in which each unit or person in the population has a known and positive chance (probability) of being selected, the sample is called “representative,” because the characteristics of the population can be inferred from the characteristics of the sample.

Why is it used? First, collecting data for a sample is less expensive than for a census.

Second, having to collect data from fewer people can be done faster than having to collect

data from every person. Third, when collecting data for a sample, more attention can be

given to each person than would be possible when collecting for a census. More attention to each person can result in more accurate data of higher quality and higher response rates.

How does it work? The sampling process involves six stages.

1.  Defining the population of interest.

2. Identifying a  sampling frame or list of individuals or households to measure (as much of the population of interest as possible).

3. Specifying a  sampling method for selecting individuals or households from the frame.

4. Determining the sample size.

5. Implementing the sampling plan to select the sample.

6. Collecting data from each sample member (that is, conducting the survey).

How does sampling apply to the housing needs assessment? To achieve a national y

representative sample, 38 tribal areas were selected, using population counts to guarantee that every tribal member had an equal chance of being included in the sample. Having a diverse

selection of tribal areas allows estimates from the sample to be national y representative. Estimates based on the interviews from a group of households in the 38 sampled tribal areas can be used to create national estimates of housing needs across Indian Country. Because they are national estimates, they cannot be applied to any particular reservation, native vil age, or tribal service area.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

9

Introduction

Final y, one other new data collection effort

2010 decennial census identifies a total

was undertaken: a  telephone survey of

of 617 AIAN tribal areas nationwide (221

lenders that originate home loans in Indian

of which are Alaska Native vil ages).

Country. This effort was a purposive sample

Appendix B defines the different types

of 30 lenders, Native CDFIs and credit

of tribal areas included in the Census

unions, and other organizations selected

Bureau data and presents counts

because of special knowledge and/or

pertaining to each type. It also explains

experience in AIAN lending; 14 extensive

the methods used in this study to

interviews were completed. Results are

define tribal area geographies that are

discussed in parts 2 and 3 of this report

comparable in 2000 and 2010.

and in the separate report on lending noted

2.  AIAN Surrounding Counties: The parts

previously (Listokin et al., 2016).

of AIAN counties outside of tribal

Geographies

areas. A major finding of the Kingsley

et al. (1996) study is the importance

In this study, key geographic divisions are

of areas outside of tribal land, but near

used that help describe a diverse, growing

enough for residents to have ties to

population. Kingsley et al. (1996) introduced

the tribal area. American Indians in

a typology based on tribal area status,

surrounding counties may have left the

adjacency to tribal areas, and metropolitan

tribal area for economic, personal, or

status to illustrate how the characteristics

other reasons, but are close enough

and needs of the AIAN population vary

to have interactions with a federally or

across the United States. Because this

state-recognized tribal land base. Of

breakdown revealed several meaningful

the 523 AIAN counties, 453 are only

differences relevant to AIAN housing needs,

partially tribal areas and, thus, contain

the same categories are used for this

areas that fall into the “surrounding

analysis. This typology is applied to the 617

counties” category.

“American Indian and Alaska Native Areas”

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010.10

•   Non-AIAN Counties: The counties that

do not contain tribal areas are referred

•   AIAN Counties: At least part of the county

to as “other counties.” These are divided

is considered to be an American Indian

between counties within and outside

or Alaska Native tribal area by the U.S.

of official y defined metropolitan areas.

Census Bureau. In 2010, 523 out of the

For the remainder of this report, non-

3,138 counties included in ONAP regions

AIAN counties within metropolitan areas

fell into the “AIAN Counties” group.11 This

(947 counties) are referred to as “other

category is divided into two subgroups.

metropolitan counties” and those outside

official y defined metropolitan areas

1.   Tribal Areas: AIAN counties or parts

(1,668 counties) are referred to as “other

of AIAN counties considered to be

nonmetropolitan counties.”

reservations and other areas with

concentrations of tribal population and

Official AIAN tribal area boundaries are

activity. This study uses boundaries as

not static, and boundaries can change for

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The

several reasons. As geographic information

10  These areas are identified by summary level 280 in census data files, but this report excludes Hawaiian Home Lands from the analysis.

Appendix B defines the five different types of tribal areas: Federally Recognized Reservations, State-Recognized Reservations, Joint-Use Areas, Tribally Designated Statistical Areas, and Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas.

11  The counts for each geographic type exclude tribal areas and counties in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

10

Introduction

system technology has advanced, tribes,

in the Kingsley et al. (1996) study, the study

states, and the U.S. Census Bureau have

regions are based on the service areas of

been able to clarify AIAN boundaries,

HUD’s six ONAP areas. For purposes of this

resulting in minor changes to the official

study, three of these areas were considered

Census Bureau boundary lines over

to be too heterogeneous and were split,

time. Land disputes between tribes or a

which results in a total of nine study regions

modified legal status may also cause tribal

(exhibit Intro. 3). The study regions and their

boundaries to be changed.

respective ONAP field offices are:

New tribal areas are also being recognized;

1.  North Central (Chicago Office—Eastern/

31 new AIAN areas were added to the

Woodlands)

Census Bureau list this past decade alone.

2. Eastern (Chicago Office—Eastern/

One goal of this report is to explore the

Woodlands)

changing characteristics of AIAN areas

during the past decade. To reflect change for

3. Oklahoma (Oklahoma City Office—

a consistent set of boundaries, the research

Southern Plains)

team created a geographic crosswalk from

tribal areas as defined in 2000 to the tribal

4. South Central (Oklahoma City Office—

areas as defined in 2010. For notes on this

Southern Plains)

methodology, see appendix B.

5. Plains (Denver Office—Northern Plains)

Another aspect of the geography also needs

6. Arizona/New Mexico (Phoenix Office—

to be recognized: region. Native Americans

Southwest)

living in tribal areas general y have more

economic and housing challenges than

7.  California/Nevada (Phoenix Office—

those living in metropolitan areas, but even

Southwest)

among tribal areas, the level of household

problems differs widely across regions. This

8. Pacific Northwest (Seattle Office—

report accordingly reviews demographic,

Northwest)

social, economic, and housing conditions

9. Alaska (Anchorage Office—Alaska)

in each previously mentioned geographic

category, further subdivided by region. As

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

11

Introduction

Exhibit Intro.3 - Location of Tribal Areas

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

12

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

size and type, educational attainment,

Part 1. Demographic,

employment levels, and income and poverty.

The comparative years in this analysis vary

Social, and Economic

based on data availability. When 2010

decennial census data are available, the

Conditions

analysis compares 2000 with 2010. When

2010 decennial census data are not available,

the analysis uses the 2006–2010 American

Introduction

Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

Part 1 of this report reviews the

These estimates represent an average of

demographic, social and economic

surveys collected monthly during the 5 years

circumstances of American Indians and

from 2006 to 2010. To assess changes in

Alaska Natives (AIAN), focusing on the

conditions for the AIAN population before

AIAN population residing in tribal areas

and after the Great Recession compared with

and their surrounding counties. Most

the rest of the U.S. population, the analysis

of the information presented is derived

uses 1-year ACS data at the regional level.

from surveys that the U.S. Census Bureau

The analysis discussed previously examines

conducted. Materials in sections 1.2

the changing economic circumstances

through 1.4 are adapted from Pettit et

of AIAN households. A separate topic,

al. 2014, this project’s interim report; the

however, is how the productive economies

analysis in section 1.5 is new, prepared for

in Indian Country (AIAN tribal areas and

this final report.

surrounding counties) have evolved. Section

Section 1.2 describes how the AIAN

1.4 covers this topic and examines growth in

population has grown during the past

business establishments and jobs in these

several decades and compares population

areas. It uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s

trends for the geographies defined in the

County Business Patterns data to document

Introduction during the past two decades.

the expansion of AIAN-owned businesses

The analysis general y focuses on data for

nationwide and show the industry and

those who chose AIAN as their only race

employment changes in Indian Country. This

(AIAN-alone), but also includes the size of

section also discusses the nature of new

the AIAN multiracial population (those who

tribal y owned businesses in Indian Country,

identify as being AIAN in combination with

including a brief examination of gaming’s

other races) and examines the shares who

influence on tribal economies.

characterize themselves as Hispanic within

The final section in part 1 (1.5) addresses

each of those categories. This section relies

one of the most striking features of the

most extensively on decennial census data

AIAN experience in America: the dramatic

for 2000 and 2010.

diversity of circumstances across tribal

Section 1.3 reports the social and economic

areas. Kingsley et al. (1996) showed

characteristics of the AIAN-alone population

that socioeconomic and also housing

and how they compare across geographies

experiences varied markedly in differing

and time and against those of other

AIAN settlements. Governance, cultural

Americans (the non-AIAN population) in

context, and land use of areas also vary

the same categories. Topics include the

across tribal areas and affect the housing

age structure of the population, household

needs of residents.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

13

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

1.2. Population Growth and

tribe. The term 'federal y recognized tribe'

means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or

Distribution

other organized group or community of

To assess the housing needs of AIAN people,

Indians, including any Alaska Native vil age or

it is necessary to understand the size of the

regional or vil age corporation as defined in

population, where people live, and how these

or established pursuant to the Alaska Native

characteristics have changed over time. This

Claims Settlement Act, that is recognized as

section reviews trends in the overall size of the

eligible for the special programs and services

AIAN population in the United States for the

provided by the United States to Indians

basic geographies and important racial/ethnic

because of their status as Indians pursuant to

subcategories. The final subsection looks at

the Indian Self-Determination and Education

the population distribution across tribal areas

Assistance Act of 1975.” The Act further

in more detail.

clarifies that the only state-recognized

tribes that qualify are those that received

Defining the American Indian and

HUD 1937 Act assistance before the

Alaska Native Population

effective date of NAHASDA.13

How this report defines the AIAN population

Even though NAHASDA defines Indians in

is clearly important for interpreting its find-

terms of tribal membership, however, no

ings, particularly because the population is

national y available, reliable, and/or uniform

defined in different ways for different purpos-

data about the number of tribal members

es. Almost all sections of this report rely on

exist for the United States as a whole, let

the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition because

alone for more detailed geographies. Given

much of this report’s analysis relies on its data

this limitation, this study must rely on census

products (as explained in later sections).

surveys, because they offer the only data

on the AIAN population that are uniformly

This approach is not ideal as it does not align

defined nationwide and provide both the

with the definition used in the context of the

racial and geographic detail required to

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-

answer this study’s research questions.

Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996,12 the

law that establishes the terms and conditions

In U.S. Census Bureau surveys,

under which federal housing assistance is

respondents self-report on their race and

provided in Indian Country and the primary

ethnicity. This report uses that definition,

concern of this report. NAHASDA states that

which defines  Indian as those respondents

“The term ‘Indian’ means any person who is

who have identified their race as AIAN.

a member of an Indian tribe” and specifical y

Tribal leaders have also recognized that

authorizes the Secretary of HUD to make

this is the only feasible approach to

“grants under this section on behalf of Indian

reliably depict the population nationwide,

tribes.” The Act also states that “the term

as indicated by their acceptance of using

‘Indian tribe’ means a tribe that is a federal y

this definition in the formula by which

recognized tribe or a State-recognized

NAHASDA grant funds are allocated.14

12  Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (P.L.104–330 as amended). Definitions are drawn from sections 4, 101, and 302.

13  The text specifically refers to tribes that have been “recognized as an Indian tribe by any State,” and “for which an Indian Housing Authority has, before the effective date under section 705, entered into a contract with the Secretary pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937

for housing for Indian families and has received funding pursuant to such contract within the 5-year period ending upon such effective date.”

14  See section 3.2 of this report for an explanation of the NAHASDA formula. The Act specifies that one of the key “factors for the determination of need” must be “the extent of poverty and economic distress and the number of Indian families within Indian areas of the tribe.” Census data are the basis for these determinations in operationalizing the formula.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

14

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Population Growth

alone population grew from 2.47 mil ion to

2.92 mil ion, an increase of 18 percent, almost

Kingsley et al. (1996) noted the rapid

twice the 9.7 percent increase during that

increase from 1970 to 1990 of people who

decade for the U.S. population as a whole.

self-identified as AIAN. This analysis updates

The AIAN multiracial population, however,

that work with information from the 2000

grew even faster: from 1.62 mil ion to 2.56

and 2010 decennial censuses. The decennial

mil ion, an increase of 39 percent.

census, although intended as a 100-percent

count of the population, historical y has

Given the purposes and context of this report,

undercounted hard-to-reach populations

which center on the NAHASDA definition,

(see appendix A for more detail). Although

it is most appropriate to primarily use the

imperfect, census data are the only complete

AIAN-alone population as the basis for the

national source of population counts by race.

analyses of AIAN population characteristics

and growth, at the national level and in

Comparisons between the 1990 and later

comparisons between major geographies;

decennial censuses are further complicated

although, as explained later in this section, this

because, starting with the 2000 decennial

report looks at the multiracial population as

census, the questionnaire permitted people

well in some analyses related to tribal areas.

to identify themselves as belonging to

more than one race. This change in racial

Consistent with this decision, exhibit 1.21

identification implies the need to examine

shows the historical context of AIAN

the AIAN population in two components: (1)

population growth in this country since 1890,

those who identified AIAN as their only race

reporting totals and estimates only for the

(“AIAN-alone”) and (2) those who identified

AIAN-alone population starting in 2000.

themselves as being AIAN and one or more

AIAN population levels remained low through

other races (“AIAN multiracial”).

most of the 20th century, but then began

to accelerate in the 1960s and 1970s. Even

Research comparing survey responses that

without the multiracial group, the growth

contain both single-race and multiple-race

has been impressive. The total jumped

questions supports the interpretation that

from 827,000 in 1970 to 1.96 mil ion in 1990,

people who identified themselves as AIAN-

reached 2.9 mil ion in 2010, and is expected

alone are more likely to be tribal members or

to more than double again to hit 4.2 mil ion in

otherwise more closely aligned with U.S. tribal

2030. Rates of growth, however, have been

cultures than the AIAN multiracial population

declining. The decennial growth rate was 38

overal . Studies show that people who identify

percent in the 1980s, but it dropped to 26

as AIAN and other races, are general y more

percent by the 1990s and again to 18 percent

likely to choose a non-AIAN race in the

from 2000 to 2010. AIANs, of course, stil

single-race responses. For instance, for the

represent a very small share of the total U.S.

largest multiracial combination of AIAN and

population, increasing slightly during the past

White, only 21 percent of the group chose

10 years from 0.88 to 0.95 percent.

AIAN when asked to choose only one race

(Parker et al., 2004).

The intersection between race and ethnicity

has emerged as a larger issue over time.15 The

The distinction is important in this study’s

Hispanic share of the AIAN population was

effort to accurately portray the size and

6.6 percent in 1980, climbed to 8.4 percent

growth of the Indian population in this

by 1990, and then grew rapidly to reach 23

country. Between 2000 and 2010, the AIAN-

15  In the decennial census, the question about race (White; African American; Asian; Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian; Native American and Alaska Native) is separate from that of ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino/not Hispanic or Latino).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

15

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

percent of the AIAN-alone population in 2010

entire Hispanic population. Even with this low

(exhibit 1.22). The additional 278,000 Hispanic

share of Hispanics that self-identify as AIAN,

AIAN-alone population drove much of the

the large size of the Hispanic population in

AIAN growth from 2000 to 2010, accounting

the United States (50.5 mil ion) and its rapid

for 61 percent of the total AIAN population

growth (43 percent from 2000 to 2010)

increase. The shift in ethnic composition is

explains the jump in percentage of self-

critical to understanding the shifting growth

identified AIAN people who are Hispanic.

patterns of Native Americans, which are

It is interesting that growth in the Hispanic

described in more detail in later sections.

AIAN-alone population is not primarily driven

The overal  Hispanic population, however, has

by recent immigration—7 out of 10 were born

shown relatively small changes in how often

in the United States, and only about 2 out of

they identify as AIAN. In 1980 and 1990, about

10 of the Hispanic AIAN-alone immigrants

0.7 percent of Hispanics self-identified as

moved to the United States after 1990. It must

AIAN-alone. By 2010, 1.4 percent of Hispanics

be recognized that a sizeable component of

self-identified as AIAN-alone, twice the rate

the AIAN-Hispanic population nationwide may

of 20 years earlier but still small relative to the

not be closely tied to U.S. tribes. Nevertheless,

Exhibit 1.21 - American Indian and Alask

Exhibit 1.21 - American Indian and Alask a Na

a Nativtive Popula

e Popula tion, 1890 t

tion, 1890 t

o 20

o 2030 30

4,500

4,192

4,000

3,500

3,436

3,000

2,932

2,500

2,476

2,000

1,959

1,500

1,420

1,000

827

552

500

American Indian/Alaska Native population  (in thousands)

332

334

343

248

266

237

244

0

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020*

2030*

* Indicates population projections.

Note: Beginning in 2000, individuals could choose more than one race. For 2000 and later years, these figures represent the AIAN Alone population.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010 and Population Projections as published in December 2009.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

16

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

the heritage of large numbers in this group

non-AIAN counties (rest of the United States).

might relate to Indian cultures in Central

In those areas (mostly metropolitan), the

or South America, rather than tribes in the

AIAN multiracial group accounted for 56

continental United States.

percent and Hispanic AIAN-alone group for

another 17 percent. The shares in the counties

Broad Spatial Patterns

surrounding tribal areas fell in-between. In

2010, the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone group

Whether the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone

(again, the group likely to contain the highest

population dominates the AIAN population

concentration of U.S. tribal members in our

varies depending on the geography. About

view) accounted for 44 percent of the AIAN

equal shares of the AIAN population were

population in the surrounding counties.

in the AIAN multiracial and non-Hispanic

AIAN-alone groups (44 and 43 percent,

Although the AIAN multiracial population

respectively) nationwide, but the Hispanic

and the Hispanic AIAN-alone populations

AIAN-alone group comprised a much smaller

experienced rapid growth (39 and 68

portion (13 percent) in 2010 (exhibit 1.23).

percent, respectively) compared with only

In tribal areas, however, the non-Hispanic

9 percent for the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone

AIAN-alone (the group this report assumes

group, growth patterns differed markedly

is the closest approximation of the U.S. tribal

in different geographies. Between 2000

Indians) group still dominated, making up 85

and 2010, the non-Hispanic AIAN-alone

percent of the AIAN population. That group,

population growth rate was 7 percent in tribal

however, accounted for only 27 percent in

areas and an even faster 14 percent in the

Exhibit 1.22 - T

Exhibit 1.22 - Tr rends in AIAN-

ends in AIAN- Alone and Hispanic Popula

Alone and Hispanic Popula

tions, 1980 t

tions, 1980 to 20 o 20

10 10

25

2.5

23.4

Percent of AIAN-alone population that is Hispanic (left axis)

Percent of Hispanic population that is AIAN-alone (right axis)

20

2.0

16.4

15

1.5

1.4

10

1.2

1.0

8.4

6.6

0.7

0.7

5

0.5

Percent of the AIAN-alone population that is Hispanic

Percent of the Hispanic population that is AIAN-alone

0

0.0

1980

1990

2000

2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 1890 to 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

17

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

surrounding counties, but only 6 percent in

data on the “total” AIAN population (AIAN-

the rest of the United States.

alone plus AIAN multiracial) than data only

for the AIAN-alone group. This is especial y

Although the AIAN multiracial and AIAN

important for the assessment of housing

Hispanic groups in urban areas and non-AIAN

needs presented in part 2. The 2000-to-2010

counties may be less likely to have direct links

growth rate of the total AIAN population

to U.S. tribal cultures, it has been argued that

in tribal areas was 12 percent, considerably

is not true for members of those groups who

more than that for the AIAN-alone group (8

live in tribal areas. In this study’s consultations

percent).

with tribal leaders16 attendees emphasized

that many multiracial and Hispanic AIAN

Despite earlier concerns, the non-Hispanic

individuals residing within tribal area

AIAN-alone population continues to grow most

boundaries are, in fact, tribal members and

rapidly near tribal areas. In the early 1990s, some

are, thus, NAHASDA eligible. This means that

in the policy community were concerned about

when looking at tribal areas separately, it may

AIAN growth rates being more rapid outside

be more appropriate for some purposes to use

tribal areas than within them, which warned of

16  Tribal Leader Consultation on HUD’s Housing Needs Assessment: Proceedings and Notes. Denver, Colorado, May 10, 2012.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/consultations/Consultation_Notes_May_10_Denver_final.pdf.

Exhibit 1.23 -AIAN Population Growth, 2000-2010, by Geographic Area

Total U.S.

Tribal Areas

Surround. Counties

Rest of U.S.

2000

2010

2000

2010

2000

2010

2000

2010

Population (000)

Total

4,094

5,187

1,021

1,148

1,012

1,321

2,061

2,718

Multiracial

1,622

2,259

129

180

395

560

1,098

1,519

AIAN-alone

2,472

2,928

893

967

617

762

963

1,199

Hispanic

406

684

21

33

111

184

274

468

Non-Hispanic

2,066

2,244

872

934

506

578

689

732

Percent of Population

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Multiracial

40

44

13

16

39

42

53

56

AIAN-alone

60

56

87

84

61

58

47

44

Hispanic

10

13

2

3

11

14

13

17

Non-Hispanic

50

43

85

81

50

44

33

27

Pct. Change, 2000-2010

Total

27

12

31

32

Multiracial

39

40

42

38

AIAN-alone

18

8

23

25

Hispanic

68

59

65

71

Non-Hispanic

9

7

14

6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

18

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

the deterioration of tribal cultures. Kingsley et

examined in more detail in Levy et al. (2016),

al. (1996), however, found that most rapid AIAN

this project’s separate report on the AIAN

growth occurred in the counties surrounding

population living in urban areas.

tribal areas; not the larger cities farther away.

When economic conditions on the reservation

Population Trends for Tribal Areas

could not support them adequately, many

by Region

moved just across the boundary, but not far

Tribal areas are an essential geographic area

away, suggesting that tribal ties remained

of focus when evaluating the challenges

strong. The data from the 2000 and 2010

faced by the American Indian population. A

censuses support basical y the same

complex web of historical and political events

conclusion for that decade. The non-Hispanic

has affected the way that the United States

AIAN-alone growth rate in the surrounding

has determined which areas legal y belong

counties (14 percent) was more than twice the

to Indian nations and which areas do not.

rate for that group in tribal areas (7 percent)

As these events are closely intertwined with

and in urban centers and other counties

American expansionism and interact with

outside of Indian Country (6 percent).17

a very diverse American Indian population,

As noted, the remainder of this report

characteristics of tribal areas vary remarkably

focuses on the AIAN population in and

in different regions of the country.

around tribal areas. The circumstances of

The introduction noted that for the 2010

those with AIAN self-identification living

decennial census, the Census Bureau had

in non-AIAN counties are touched on for

identified and mapped 617 AIAN tribal

reference in some later sections of this

areas. Altogether, these areas encompassed

report (section 1.3 in particular), but they are

17  As discussed in  Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Urban Areas (Levy et al., 2016), AIANs who participated in the study said they have maintained strong ties to their tribal culture even though they live some distance away. Those who participated in that study, however, were most likely to maintain cultural ties because recruitment was done through AIAN entities.

Exhibit 1.24 - Population and Characteristics of AIAN Tribal Areas, 2010

United

North

South

Arizona

Calif.

Pacific

States

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Number Tribal Areas

617

36

68

30

17

31

42

130

42

221

Area (Sq. Miles, 000)

187.1

4.8

5.3

52.1

1.5

46.9

43.7

2.8

9.4

20.5

Density (Pop./ Sq. Mi.)

25.8

23.2

156.7

49.0

169.0

5.0

7.2

26.3

21.6

11.9

Population (000) 2010

Total all races

4,819

111

828

2,557

251

233

317

74

203

244

AIAN Total

1,148

46

116

407

17

135

271

28

48

79

AIAN-alone

967

42

102

280

13

128

266

25

42

67

Percent of Population

Total all races

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

AIAN Total

24

42

14

16

7

58

86

38

24

33

AIAN-alone

20

38

12

11

5

55

84

34

21

27

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

19

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

187,100 square miles of land accommodating

accounted for only 24 percent of the total

a total AIAN resident population of 1.15

populations in tribal areas. AIAN people

mil ion, which implies an average size of 303

made up a majority of the population in

square miles and 1,860 AIAN residents per

only two regions: (1) the Plains, where 58

tribal area (see exhibit 1.24).

percent of tribal area residents were AIAN,

and (2) Arizona/New Mexico, where nearly al

As noted, however, major variations occurred in

residents (86 percent) were AIAN. In all other

these and other characteristics across the nine

regions, AIAN residents were in the minority,

study regions. In the California/Nevada and

with their population shares ranging from

Alaska regions, tribal areas were general y quite

only 7 percent in the South Central up to 42

small with an average of 214 and 359 AIAN

percent in the North Central region.

residents per area, respectively. Oklahoma

and Arizona/New Mexico fell at the other

Total tribal area population densities (including

extreme. There, the average AIAN population

AIAN and non-Indian populations) were

was 13,583 and 6,458 AIAN residents per area,

general y low as wel : an average of 25.8

respectively. The total square miles of tribal

persons per square mile, with a range from 5.0

area land varied from 46,900 in the Plains

in the Plains up to a high of 169.0 in the South

and 43,700 in Arizona/New Mexico down to

Central region. Despite this variation, al  regions

1,500 in the South Central Region and 2,800 in

classify as rural, on average, as areas with

California/Nevada.

densities less than 200 persons per square mile

are general y considered to be rural. In contrast,

It is important to note that in most regions,

the average density of the urbanized portions

the non-Indian populations living in tribal

of all U.S. metropolitan areas according to the

areas in 2010 were larger than the total

2010 U.S. census was 2,343 per square mile.

AIAN populations. Overal , AIAN residents

Exhibit 1.25 - 2000-2010 Population Change in Tribal Areas

United

North

South

Arizona

Calif.

Pacific

States

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Population (000) 2000

AIAN Total

1,021.1

40.9

97.9

334.1

14.1

124.4

269.8

24.2

43.1

72.6

AIAN-alone

892.6

38.1

90.3

238.3

11.8

120.7

266.1

22.8

39.5

65.0

Population (000) 2010

AIAN Total

1,147.6

46.2

1 5.8

407.5

16.6

135.0

271.2

27.8

48.0

79.4

AIAN-alone

967.1

42.2

102.5

280.1

13.4

128.4

265.9

25.4

42.1

67.1

AIAN-alone percent of total

2000

87

93

92

71

84

97

99

94

92

90

2010

84

91

89

69

81

95

98

91

88

84

Percent growth 2000-2010

AIAN Total

12

13

18

22

18

9

1

15

11

9

AIAN-alone

8

11

13

18

14

6

(0)

12

7

3

Source:  U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

20

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.2 .26 - T

6 - T ribal Ar

ribal Ar ea Gr

ea Gro owth in T

wth in To otal AIAN Popula

tal AIAN Popula

tion (

tion (

AIAN-

AIAN-

Alone + Multi-r

Alone + Multir

ace), 2000-

acial), 2000-2010 2010

450

408

400

2000

2010

350

334

300

270

271

250

200

150

Population Count (in thousands)

135

124

116

100

98

79

73

50

41

46

43

48

24

28

14

17

0

North Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

South Central

Plains

Arizona/New Mexico California/Nevada

Pacific Northwest

Alaska

Study Region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

Although it is declining at both the national

Mobility

and regional levels, considerable variation

The previous sections examine residence

exists across tribal areas in the AIAN-alone

as of April 2010, but households may

share of total AIAN populations (exhibits

move in response to changes in family or

1.25 and 1.26). The AIAN multiracial group

financial status or to be closer to amenities

general y grew more rapidly than the AIAN-

or employment opportunities. About 81

alone population during the 2000-to-2010

percent of the AIAN population in the 2006–

decade, causing the national AIAN-alone

2010 ACS reported living in the same house

share in tribal areas to drop from 87 to 84

they had lived in 1 year before (a rate slightly

percent. The AIAN-alone share also declined

less likely than for non-AIAN households).

in each region. In 2010, the AIAN-alone share

AIAN people living in tribal areas are less

of the overall AIAN population was more than

likely to move than are AIAN people overal :

80 percent in all but one region. The highest

88 percent reported living in the same house

shares were found in Arizona/New Mexico

as in the previous year.

(98 percent) and the Plains (95 percent).

Oklahoma was the exception, where only 69

Although move-in dates cannot be

percent of the AIAN population identified as

differentiated by race, a greater share overall

single race.

of homeowners on tribal lands (58 percent)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

21

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

moved into their homes before 2000 than

chapter, so all national estimates exclude

did so nationwide (55 percent). For renters,

Hawaii unless otherwise noted.

the difference is negligible—15.1 percent of

For some variables, changes can be

renter households in tribal areas moved into

compared during the 2000-to-2010 period

their homes before 2000, less than one-half

because decennial census data for both

of 1 percentage point different than the rate

years are available (age structure, household

for all households.

size and type). For the others (educational

1.3. Social and Economic Conditions

attainment, employment levels, and income

and poverty), the analysis is limited to

Section 1.3 of this report is an adapted

comparing 2000 decennial census long-form

excerpt from Pettit et al. (2014), this study’s

values with the 5-year averages in the 2006–

interim report (see section 3, Social and

2010 ACS. The ACS has a smaller sample

Economic Conditions, in Pettit et al., 2014).

size than the 2000 long form, and thus

wider confidence intervals, particularly for

Population growth is a central driver of

smaller or more rural geographies like many

change in housing needs, and the last

tribal areas.18 The methodology of summing

section has shown that considerable

the tribal areas together should minimize

diversity exists in growth rates in Indian

the error involved, but any small changes in

Country. Growth, however, tel s only part of

indicators should be viewed with caution.19

the story. The nature of the housing needs

in two places with similar growth trajectories

For most of this section, using the decennial

would differ substantial y if one area has a

census long-form and the ACS limits detailed

much higher unemployment rate, share of

geographic analysis to the entire AIAN-alone

young children, or marriage rate than the

population, which includes both Hispanic

other, as will be explained in more detail

and non-Hispanic Native Americans.20 The

throughout this section.

implications of including both Hispanics

and non-Hispanics will vary for the different

The first part of this section explores

geographic areas. As noted in section 1.2,

variations in a number of socioeconomic

Hispanics account for a small share of the

characteristics like these that help shape

AIAN-alone population in tribal areas, so the

an area’s housing need. As noted in section

statistics presented for tribal areas largely

1.1, the main topics include age structure,

reflect conditions for the non-Hispanic AIAN-

household size and type, educational

alone population. In contrast, the growth of

attainment, employment levels, and income

the Hispanic AIAN population could have

and poverty. Throughout, conditions and

more influence on the changes in the AIAN

trends are compared for the AIAN-alone

social and economic characteristics in non-

population against those for non-Indians. This

AIAN counties. To help interpret the patterns

section also looks at variations across area

and trends by geographic area, differences

types and study regions as in the preceding

are noted between Hispanic and non-

section. Consistent with the previous chapter,

Hispanic AIAN-alone populations nationwide

Hawaii is excluded from the analysis in this

for selected indicators.

18  See DeWeaver (2010) for more information on the limitations of the ACS in providing complete, timely, and reliable data for Indian Country.

19  It was not possible to accurately calculate the margin of error (MOE) by geographic area types because the Census Bureau advises that the approximation formula provided to calculate MOEs for calculated indicators seriously breaks down when aggregating more than four estimates (Alexander, 2011).

20  The researchers do not distinguish between the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic AIAN-alone populations in most of the analysis in this section-because the Census Bureau publishes only summary tables for the standard 2006–2010 ACS for the total AIAN-alone population.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

22

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

An important question not answered by the

to exclude that state from the West region in

analysis that uses 2000 as the benchmark is

the particular census data used here.)

how the AIAN population fared before and

after the onset of the Great Recession. The

Age Structure

5-year ACS data cannot be used to answer

The age structure of a population, along

this question because they represent surveys

with different household type patterns,

collected monthly from 2006 to 2010, which

which are discussed later, affects household

spans both the period of economic expansion

formation and housing need because it is

and the Great Recession. More recent data

tied to major life-cycle events (for example,

are available from the 1-year ACS, although

moving out on one’s own, getting married,

data from that source cannot be presented

having children). The Kingsley et al. (1996)

in much detail geographical y. The period

study noted that AIANs were younger, on

from 2008 to 2010 is examined to look at the

average, than the non-AIAN population. The

impact of the Great Recession on the AIAN-

most recent decennial census confirms that

alone population compared with non-Indians

this is still the case.

for the United States as a whole, and the four

main Census Bureau regions. (This analysis

As shown in exhibit 1.31, the AIAN-alone

includes Hawaii because it was not possible

population is more heavily concentrated in

Exhibit 1.31 - Shar

Exhibit 1.31 - Shar e of Popula

e of Popula

tion b

tion by A y Age Gr

ge Gr

oup and Rac

oup and Race, 20e, 20

10 10

85+

80 to 84

75 to 79

70 to 74

65 to 69

60 to 64

55 to 59

50 to 54

45 to 49

40 to 44

Non-AIAN-alone

Age group

35 to 39

AIAN-alone

30 to 34

25 to 29

20 to 24

15 to 19

10 to 14

5 to 9

0 to 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Percent of population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

23

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

younger age groups as compared with the

aging of the population; the under-18 shares

non-AIAN population. Up to age 40, the

dropped for both the AIAN and non-AIAN

AIAN population share for each age group

populations in the 2000s across all area

exceeds that of the non-AIAN population,

types. The AIAN decrease was larger than for

but after age 40, the non-AIAN population

the non-AIAN population, and as a result the

shares surpass the AIAN population shares.

gap narrowed. The percentage of the AIAN

population younger than age 18 fell from 1.33

Overal , 30 percent of the AIAN population in

times the non-AIAN level in 2000 to 1.26

2010 was younger than 18 compared with 24

times that level in 2010. The highest share of

percent of the non-AIAN population. Having

children is found in tribal areas (34 percent),

a higher share of children has important

but they also experienced the greatest shift

implications for AIAN housing needs. For

in age distribution—a drop of 4.8 percentage

example, households with children wil

points since 2000 (exhibit 1.32).

require a larger house or apartment in

areas with such options and may also be

Looking at the age differences by Hispanic

concerned with access to quality schools

origin, the Hispanic AIAN population more

and parks (McAuley and Nutty, 1982).

closely mirrors the Hispanic non-AIAN

population than non-Hispanic Native

Although still higher than the non-AIAN

Americans. For example, about 10 percent

share, the percentage of the AIAN population

of the Hispanic non-AIAN population is

younger than 18 fell 4 percentage points

younger than 5 compared with 9.3 percent

from 2000 to 2010. This reflects the overal

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.3 .32- Gap Be

2 - Gap Betw tween AIAN and Non-

een AIAN and Non- AIAN Popula

AIAN Popula tion  Under 18 and 62 and Older b

tion  Under 18 and 62 and Older by Ar y Ar

ea T ea T

ype ype, 20

, 2010 10

1.6

Tribal areas

1.4

Surrounding counties

1.4

Other metropolitan counties

1.2

1.2

Other nonmetropolitan counties

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

Ratio of AIAN-alone population share

to the non-AIAN-alone population share  0.2

0.0

Under 18

62 and older

Source: US Census Bureau, decennial census 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

24

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

of Hispanic Native Americans and only 7.5

population. In 2010, 9.3 percent of the AIAN

percent of non-Hispanic Native Americans.

population was age 62 and older compared

with 16 percent for the non-AIAN population.

Understanding the trends in the elderly is

Tribal areas and other nonmetropolitan

also important for assessing housing needs.

counties had larger shares of both their AIAN

The AIAN-alone elderly population has high

and non-AIAN populations in this elderly

disability rates, increasing the importance

group compared with surrounding counties

of the accessibility of housing. In 2011, more

and other metropolitan counties.

than one-half (51 percent) of the AIAN-alone

population age 65 and older was disabled

The percentage of the population in the age 62

as compared with 47 percent for the United

and older category increased during the past

States as a whole.21 Frail or disabled elderly

two decades across all area types for both the

households may require adapted features

AIAN and non-AIAN population. The increase

(for example, safety features like grab bars

from 2000 to 2010 in elderly share for AIANs

in bathrooms). They also often live on fixed

exceeded the growth in the non-AIAN share,

incomes, making the continued affordability

so again the gap between the AIAN and non-

of their housing an important factor

AIAN populations narrowed. Overal , the ratio

(Spil man, Biess, and MacDonald, 2012).

of AIAN to non-AIAN shares of people age 62

and older rose from 0.48 in 2000 to 0.57 in

American Indians and Alaska Natives stil

2010. This pattern held across all area types.

had a considerably smaller share of their

population 62 and older than the non-Indian

21  Disability statistics are from the 2011 ACS 1-year estimates.

22  The indicators presented for household size and type define AIAN-alone households as those with an AIAN-alone householder.

Exhibit 1.33 - A

Exhibit 1.33 - Aververage Household Siz

age Household Size b e by Rac

y Rac

e and Ar

e and Area T ea T

ype ype, 20

, 2010 10

3.5

3.2

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.0

AIAN-alone

Non-AIAN-alone

1.5

1.0

0.5

Average number of persons per household

0.0

Total

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Other metropolitan

Other nonmetropolitan

counties

counties

Area type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

25

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Household Sizes and Types

to 2010, little change occurred in the average

household size of either AIAN or non-AIAN

Household size has a direct link to what size

households in any of the area types.

housing units are in demand in a given area,

and AIAN-alone households tend to be larger

The Kingsley et al. (1996) study found that

than non-AIAN households.22 In 2010, the

large households (those with five or more

average AIAN household size was 3 persons,

people) made up a larger share of all AIAN

although the average non-AIAN household

households than in non-AIAN households.

size was 2.6 persons. This pattern persisted

Consistent with higher average household

across all area types (exhibit 1.33). From 2000

sizes, the percentage of AIAN households

23  The analysis of household type conducted for the Kingsley et al. (1996) report is not directly comparable with the analyses presented here, but the overall pattern holds. The previous analysis used a data source that defined AIAN households as households with an AIAN-alone householder or AIAN spouse, whereas the data used in these analyses define AIAN-alone households as those with an AIAN-alone householder.

Household Definitions According to the 2010 Census

household: A social unit that includes all the people who occupy a housing unit (that is, is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as

separate living quarters).

large household: Households with five or more people

family or family household:  A social unit that includes the head of the household, or householder, and one or more other people living in the same household who are related to

the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may include people not

related to the householder. Families are classified as married-couple families, single-parent families, or other families.

married-couple family:  A family social unit in which the householder and his or her spouse are enumerated as members of the same household. Married-couple families with children can

include the householder’s own biological children, stepchildren, or children through adoption.

single-parent family:  A family social unit in which the head of the household is not married, but the household includes the householder’s own biological children, stepchildren, or

children through adoption. These households are classified as male-headed or female-

headed based on the sex of the householder.

other family:  A family social unit in which the household is male- or female-headed without children under the age of 18.

nonfamily household: A social unit that includes a single person only or a single person with nonrelatives only.

single-person household:  A social unit with only one member.

multigenerational household: A social unit that contains three or more parent-child generations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing

Characteristics, Selected Appendixes: 2010, B–4 Definitions of Subject Characteristics and

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

26

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

with five or more people in 2010 (19 percent)

percent of AIAN households were family

was much higher than the comparable figure

households, in contrast to only 66 percent

for non-AIAN households (11 percent).23 The

of non-AIAN households. The share of non-

AIAN large-household share dropped 0.8

AIAN households in families varied little

points from 2000 to 2010, but the non-AIAN

across area type—from 66 to 68 percent. In

share stayed about the same.

contrast, the family share of AIAN households

ranged widely from 66 percent in other

Although the patterns of household size

nonmetropolitan counties up to 75 percent

changed little since the Kingsley et al. (1996)

in tribal areas. The family share of both AIAN

study, the mix of AIAN types of households

and non-AIAN households decreased across

has changed in absolute terms and in relation

all area types from 2000 to 2010, but the

to non-AIAN households. As mentioned in

variation across area types was similar in both

the previous discussion of age structure,

years. AIAN households correspondingly

household type has important implications

had lower shares in nonfamily household

for housing need, with housing demand

arrangements (30 percent) than non-AIAN

and preferences varying by household type,

households (34 percent) in 2010. This varied

particularly with the presence of children.

by geography: AIAN households in tribal areas

(See the text box, Household Definitions

had the lowest share of nonfamily households

According to the 2010 Census.)

(25 percent), and AIAN households in other

nonmetropolitan counties had the highest

Further, housing instability is particularly

share (34 percent). AIAN households are also

prevalent among low-income families with

less likely to live in single-person households

children (Phinney et al., 2007). In 2010, 70

than the non-AIAN population.

Exhibit 1.34 - AIAN Households b

Exhibit 1.34 - AIAN Households b

y Household T

y Household Type ype, 1990 and 20

, 1990 and 2010 10

35

29.6

30

28.6

25.8

25

20.2

20.7

20

19.4

1990

16.5

16.9

2010

15

13.5

10

8.9

Percent of the AIAN-alone households

5

0

Married w/ children

Single parent w/ children

Married w/out children

Other families

Nonfamily households

Household type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 1990 and 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

27

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Nationwide in 2010, 23 percent of AIAN-

In 2010, the percentage of AIAN

alone households consisted of a single

households that consisted of single-parent

person compared with 27 percent of non-

families (17 percent) was much higher than

AIAN households.

that of non-AIAN households (9.5 percent).

This relationship held for both female-

The most dramatic change among

headed households and male-headed

household types from 1990 to 2010 was

households. Overall, 12 percent of AIAN

the precipitous drop in the share of AIAN

households consisted of female-headed

households that were married couples

families with children compared with 7.1

with children (exhibit 1.34). In 1990, 29

percent of non-AIAN households, and 4.6

percent of AIAN households consisted of

percent of AIAN households consisted

married couples with children; this figure

of male-headed families with children

dropped to 19 percent by 2010. Although the

compared with 2.4 percent of non-AIAN

comparable share for non-AIAN households

households. The relatively high share of

also declined (from 26 percent in 1990 to 20

AIAN female-headed households is of

percent in 2010), the drop was not as large.

particular concern because they are more

By 2010, AIAN households were just about

likely to experience housing hardship and

as likely to consist of married couples with

instability than married parents (Manning

children as non-AIAN households (exhibit

and Brown, 2006; Nelson, 2004).

1.35).

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.3 .35 - AIAN and Non-

5 - AIAN and Non- AIAN Households b

AIAN Households b y Household T

y Household T ype, 20

ype, 2010 10

40

35

33.6

30

29.6

28.3

25

AIAN-alone

20.7

20.2

Non-AIAN-alone

20

19.4

16.9

15

13.5

Percent of households by type

10

9.5

8.4

5

0

Married w/ children

Single parent w/ children

Married w/out children

Other families

Nonfamily households

Household type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

28

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

In 2010, the prevalence of single-parent

children older than the age of 18 continuing

families was higher in tribal areas and

to live in the household or returning to the

their surrounding counties than in non-

household. Other research has documented

AIAN counties. Single-parent families

that AIAN households are more likely

with children made up 18 to 19 percent of

than the population in general to live in

AIAN households on tribal areas and in

multigenerational arrangements. Using

surrounding counties, but they accounted

2009–2011 ACS 3-year estimates, the U.S.

for only 15 percent in other metropolitan

Census Bureau finds that AIAN households

counties and 13 percent in other

have a larger share of families living in

nonmetropolitan counties. In contrast, the

multigenerational households (about 11

single-parent family share varied little by

percent) than the total population (5.6

area type for non-AIAN households (ranging

percent) (Lofquist, 2012). Shares of AIAN

from a much lower 8.9 to 9.9 percent).

families in multigenerational households are

larger in states with large AIAN populations.

Since 2000, the percentages of AIAN single-

parent family households decreased slightly,

Educational Attainment

both overall and across all area types, but

Educational attainment affects an

the percentages of non-AIAN households

individual’s ability to find and retain

consisting of single-parent families increased

employment. Those with less education are

slightly both overall (0.3 percent increase)

more likely to experience difficulties in these

and across all area types. Thus, the gap in

areas, which can lead to housing instability

single-parent family shares between AIAN

(Phinney et al., 2007). In general, the AIAN

and non-AIAN households narrowed during

population has lower levels of educational

the 2000s. The AIAN single-parent share

attainment than the non-AIAN population.

was 1.8 times the non-AIAN share in 2010,

The proportion of AIAN adults (age 25

down slightly from 1.9 in 2000.

and older) without a high school degree,

The “other family” category is defined as

however, has fallen significantly during the

male- or female-headed family households

past decade. During the 2006-to-2010

without children under the age of 18. In

period, this share was 23 percent, down 6

2010, these other families accounted for

percentage points from the 2000 share (29

14 percent of all AIAN households, much

percent) (exhibit 1.36).

more than the 8.4 percent rate for non-

Despite these gains, the 2006-to-2010

AIAN households. The share of households

rate was still much higher than the 15

in this family arrangement increased from

percent for non-AIAN adults, and the gap

1990 for all groups, but at a much faster

is widening. In 1990, the share of the AIAN

pace for AIAN households than non-AIAN

population without a high school diploma

households. As a result, the AIAN share in

was 1.4 times the non-AIAN share. This

this category jumped from 1.3 times the

figure increased to 1.5 times in 2000, and

non-AIAN share in 1990, to 1.6 times in 2010.

again to 1.6 times during the 2006-to-2010

The increase in the share of other family

period. The share of adults without a high

households could be due to an increase

school diploma was slightly higher in tribal

in the number of multigenerational

areas and other nonmetropolitan areas,

households—either with elderly family

but the gap with non-AIAN rates persisted

members moving into the household or

across all area types.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

29

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.36 - Share of Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10

Exhibit 1.36 - Share Adults Without a High School Diploma by Race, 1990 to 2006–10

40

35

34.4

30

29.1

25

24.7

23.4

AIAN-alone

Non-AIAN-alone

20

19.6

14.9

15

without a high school diploma

10

Percent of the population age 25 or older

5

0

1990

2000

2006-10

Sources: Kingsley et al. 1996; U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2010, and American Community Survey, 2006–10 Five-Year Estimates The growth of Hispanic AIAN population

Noteworthy variations in educational

contributed to the growing gap in education.

attainment existed across regions. Overal ,

About 19 percent of AIAN non-Hispanics

the shares without a high school diploma

older than 25 during the 2006-to-2010

were highest in Arizona/New Mexico (27

period did not have a high school degree.

percent) and the Eastern and California/

The share for Hispanic AIAN adults is almost

Nevada regions (25 percent) and lowest in

twice as high at 37 percent, close to the 36

the Oklahoma and North Central regions (17

percent rate for non-AIAN Hispanics.

and 18 percent, respectively). The regional

distributions of this measure were similar for

In a similar way, English proficiency provides

AIAN and non-AIAN counties.

another contrast among AIAN Hispanics and

non-Hispanics. About 30 percent of AIAN

During the 2006-to-2010 period, the

Hispanics do not speak English very wel .

share of the AIAN adult population with a

This is lower than the 37 percent for non-

bachelor’s degree or higher was 13 percent

AIAN Hispanics, which makes sense given

overal , but this indicator varied considerably

the smaller share of AIAN Hispanics that is

by area type. AIAN adults in tribal areas

new immigrants, as mentioned in section

were least likely to have completed a

1.2. The share of AIAN non-Hispanics not

college education (only 9.2 percent),

speaking English very well is comparatively

but the percentage for AIAN population

quite smal —about 4 percent.

living in other metropolitan counties was

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

30

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

much higher, at almost 17 percent. The

decreased to 68 percent of the non-AIAN

2006-to-2010 share of AIAN adults with a

share in the 2006-to-2010 period.

bachelor’s degree was only slightly higher

than the 2000 level—an increase of only 1.5

Employment

percentage points.

Labor force participation and employment

general y determines household income,

Even with these gains, the share of AIAN

which is the primary determinant of a

adults who had completed college is still

family’s ability to address its housing

far lower than the 28 percent for non-AIAN

needs. The formation of new households

adults. Overal , the gap between the AIAN

(for example, young adults moving out

and non-AIAN population on this measure

of their parents’ homes and starting their

has shown little change since 1990. The

own households) is suppressed when

2000 and 2006-to-2010 percentage of the

unemployment is higher, which lessens

AIAN population obtaining a bachelor’s

housing demand (Masnick, McCue, and

or graduate degree was only 47 and 46

Belsky, 2010). The employment situation of

percent of the non-AIAN share, respectively,

the AIAN population general y worsened

about the same as the 1990 comparison.

during the 2000s. Three indicators related

The gap between the AIAN and non-AIAN

to employment were examined in this

populations, however, widened in some area

section: (1) the share of the AIAN population

types and narrowed in others from 2000 to

older than 16 in the labor force—either

the 2006-to-2010 period. In tribal areas, the

working or looking for work (labor force

gap is widest, but it has improved the most:

participation rate), (2) the percentage of the

the percentage of the AIAN population

population older than 16 that was employed

with a bachelor’s or higher degree was 44

(employment rate), and (3) the share of

percent of the non-AIAN percentage in

the labor force that was unemployed

2000 and 46 percent in the 2006-to-2010

(unemployment rate). (See the text box,

period. In other nonmetropolitan areas, the

Employment Indicators.)

gap is much smaller, but it increased during

The labor force participation rate fell slightly

that period. In 2000, the share of the AIAN

from 61 percent in 2000, to 60 percent in

population with at least a bachelor’s degree

the 2006-to-2010 period. The non-AIAN

was 71 percent of the non-AIAN share and

participation rate increased slightly during

Employment Indicators

labor force participation rate:  the share of the population age 16 and older in the labor force that was either working or looking for work in either civilian jobs or in the military.

employment rate: the percentage of population age 16 and older that was employed in civilian jobs.

unemployment rate: the share of the civilian labor force that was unemployed.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Glossary.

http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

31

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.37 - AIAN Employment Indicators by Study Region and Area Type, 2006–10

United

North

South

Arizona

Calif.-

Pacific

States

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

AIAN-Alone Labor Force Participation Rate (population 16 and older)

Total

59.9

62.1

60.4

62.1

62.9

60.5

54.0

61.1

62.3

59.3

Tribal Areas

55.3

62.1

56.1

61.3

58.0

57.5

47.4

49.3

56.5

59.4

Surrounding Counties

62.0

63.0

61.2

67.7

57.0

63.5

63.2

59.3

62.7

59.3

Other metropolitan

64.4

63.4

63.5

NA

65.3

65.5

59.0

64.5

69.1

58.1

counties

Other nonmetropolitan

53.7

53.2

51.4

58.7

56.7

54.3

48.3

55.7

58.3

NA

counties

AIAN-Alone Employment Rate (population 16 and older)

Total

51.6

51.5

52.8

56.1

56.9

49.7

46.1

52.4

52.9

46.4

Tribal Areas

46.5

48.8

49.3

55.5

53.4

44.7

39.1

40.1

45.8

45.1

Surrounding Counties

53.6

53.2

53.4

60.3

53.2

54.1

55.6

50.5

53.5

49.4

Other metropolitan

56.2

52.8

55.7

NA

59.1

54.5

47.0

55.8

60.3

46.8

counties

Other nonmetropolitan

47.1

46.2

44.0

53.0

50.3

49.2

44.0

52.0

49.9

NA

counties

AIAN-Alone Unemployment Rate (civilian labor force age 16 and older)

Total

13.9

17.0

12.5

9.7

9.6

17.9

14.7

14.3

15.1

21.7

Tribal Areas

15.9

21.3

12.2

9.5

7.9

22.2

17.6

18.7

18.8

24.0

Surrounding Counties

13.6

15.5

12.9

1 .0

6.7

14.7

12.0

14.9

14.7

16.7

Other metropolitan

12.7

16.7

12.2

NA

9.4

16.8

20.4

13.4

12.7

19.3

counties

Other nonmetropolitan

12.3

13.1

14.3

9.7

11.3

9.4

9.0

6.7

14.4

NA

counties

NA: Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–10 Five-Year Estimates.

the same time period, from 63 to 65 percent.

regions (North Central, Oklahoma, South

As a result, the gap widened, with the AIAN

Central, and Pacific Northwest) (exhibit 1.37).

rate moving from 3 percentage points below

Disparities with non-Indians also varied by

the non-AIAN rate to 5 percentage points

region. Overal  labor force participation was

lower during this period. The AIAN labor

the same or almost the same for AIAN and

force participation rates are considerably

non-AIAN populations in the Oklahoma and

higher in other metropolitan counties

South Central regions, but the AIAN rate

(64 percent) and lower in tribal areas

was 8 to 11 percentage points lower than the

(55 percent) and other nonmetropolitan

non-Indian rate in the Plains, Arizona/New

counties (54 percent).

Mexico, and Alaska regions.

By region, the AIAN labor force shares

Looking at the second employment-related

(across all area types) varied from a low

indicator, a little more than one-half of the

of 54 percent (Arizona/New Mexico) to

AIAN population 16 and older was employed,

highs in the 62-to-63-percent range in four

according to the 2006–2010 data compared

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

32

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

with almost 60 percent for non-AIAN (exhibit

The unemployment rate is the final indicator

1.38). This pattern of lower employment rates

used to understand AIAN employment

for AIAN compared with non-AIAN holds true

patterns. About 14 percent of the AIAN

in all the geographic areas. AIAN employment

labor force was unemployed in the 2006-

rates are lowest in the tribal areas and other

to-2010 period. The AIAN unemployment

nonmetropolitan counties (47 percent).

rate was highest in tribal areas (16

percent) in contrast to the 12 to 14 percent

Tribal areas also had the largest gap in

unemployment rates for AIAN people in

employment compared with the non-AIAN

other areas.

rate (about 10 percentage points). The

employment rate in other metropolitan

As with the other indicators, unemployment

counties was 61 percent for non-Indians

rates are worse for AIAN than for non-AIAN

compared with 56 percent for AIAN-alone

people; the AIAN rate was about 6 points

people in those counties.

higher than the non-AIAN rate in the 2006-

to-2010 period. The gap overal , however,

AIAN workers are also less likely than non-

has been declining during the past two

AIAN workers to work full time. Only 53

decades. In 1990, the AIAN unemployment

percent of AIAN workers reported ful -time

rate was 2.3 times the non-AIAN rate. The

employment in the 2006-to-2010 period

ratio fell to 2.2 in 2000 and then fell again to

compared with 60 percent of non-AIAN

1.8 in the 2006-to-2010 period. The decline

workers. These rates were similar across

is mostly due to the increase in the non-

geographic areas.

AIAN unemployment rate (up 1.7 points over

24  Lack of health insurance estimates are from the 2011 ACS 1-year estimates.

Exhibit 1.38 - Emplo

Exhibit 1.38 - Emplo ymen

ymen t Indica

t Indicat tors b

ors b

y Rac

y Race  f e for Popula

or Popula

tion 16 and Ov

tion 16 and Over er, 2006–

, 2006–10 10

59.9

Labor force

participation rate

64.6

AIAN-alone

51.6

Non-AIAN-alone

Employment

rate

59.5

53.0

Percent of workers

working ful-time

60.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent of the population 16 and over

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006– 10 Five-Year Estimates.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

33

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

the 20 years) rather than the improvement

smallest gap between AIAN and non-AIAN

in the AIAN rate (which fell only 0.3 points).

households of about $14,000.

In addition, these employment conditions

Average household income decreased

result in lower rates of health insurance

since 2000 for both AIAN and non-AIAN

coverage for the AIAN-alone population

households overal —by $3,500 for AIAN

than for the non-AIAN population. The share

households and $3,300 for non-AIAN

of the AIAN-alone population that lacked

households, after accounting for inflation.

health insurance was 28 percent, which is 13

The average household income also fell in

percentage points higher than the non-AIAN

each geography type; however, the size of

share for the Nation as a whole in 2011.24 This

the decrease varied. For AIAN households,

means that the AIAN-alone population faces

average household income fell by the largest

added healthcare costs on top of already

amount in other nonmetropolitan counties

lower income levels (as will be discussed

($9,500). In other metropolitan counties,

in the next section), which leads to greater

average household income dropped by

challenges in affording housing.

about $6,000, and in surrounding counties

it fell by about $2,900. In tribal areas

Income and Poverty

the average household income fell by

a much smaller amount—only by about

Household income affects both housing

$130. For non-AIAN households, the

preferences and needs and also the ability

average household income dropped by

to satisfy them. For example, higher-

the smallest amount in tribal areas as well

income households are more likely to prefer

(about $870), but the decrease in the other

owning a single-family home and are more

geography types ranged from $2,700 in

able to achieve that, but lower income

the surrounding counties to $3,800 in other

households are more likely to rent (Katz

metropolitan counties.

and Turner, 2007; Skaburskis, 1999). Lower

income households are also more likely to

The ratio of AIAN income to non-AIAN

experience housing hardship (Nelson, 2004).

income fell slightly more over the decade,

The average AIAN household income in the

from 0.71 to 0.69 overal . AIAN households

2006-to-2010 period was $49,000, which

lost the most ground compared with non-

was about $22,000 less than the non-

AIAN households in non-AIAN counties.

AIAN average. Although average income

In other metropolitan counties, the

varied by geography for both groups, the

ratio fell from 0.78 to 0.74, and in other

average AIAN household income was less

nonmetropolitan counties the ratio fell by an

than that of non-AIAN households across

even larger margin—from 0.84 to 0.71.25

all geography types. The surrounding

counties and other metropolitan counties

Among all gaps between Native American

exhibited the highest average income for

and non-AIAN wel -being, that in the

both AIAN and non-AIAN households, but

poverty rate may be the most troubling.

also exhibited the largest disparity between

(See the text box, Poverty Rate.) More

the groups at $20,000. Tribal areas and

than one-fourth (26 percent) of the AIAN

other nonmetropolitan counties conversely

population lived below the poverty line

had lower average income levels—$42,000

in 2000 and in the 2006-to-2010 period.

and $38,000, respectively—but they had the

This is almost twice the rate for non-AIAN

individuals in both of these periods. In the

25  By contrast with education and language, economic indicators reveal similarities among the groups. AIAN households have similar income levels whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic ($49,000 to $50,000).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

34

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Poverty Rate

The poverty rate is the percentage of people living in households that have money incomes

that fall below the poverty threshold for their family size and composition, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

2006-to-2010 period, the poverty rate for

period were lower than for children (24 and

the AIAN-alone population in tribal areas

20 percent, respectively), but the difference

was 32 percent, substantial y more than

in rates for AIAN and non-AIAN people in

the 18 percent national rate for non-Indians

these groups are wider than the differential

(exhibit 1.39). The AIAN-alone rate was

in child poverty rates. For example, the AIAN

28 percent in surrounding counties and

elderly poverty rate was more than twice (2.1

22 percent in other metropolitan counties

times) the non-AIAN rate overall and almost

compared with 14 and 13 percent for

2.5 times the non-AIAN rate in tribal areas.

non-Indians in those areas, respectively.

Regional differences in AIAN poverty

The poverty rate is even higher for AIAN

were substantial. Across all area types, the

children. One in three AIAN children was

2006-to-2010 rates ranged from the 20-to-

poor in the 2006-to-2010 period compared

22-percent range at the low end (South

with one in five non-AIAN children (exhibit

Central, California/Nevada, and Alaska), to

1.310). Among geographic areas, AIAN

36 percent (Plains), and 33 percent (Arizona/

children in tribal areas were most likely to be

New Mexico) at the upper end. In tribal areas,

poor (39 percent).

the rates varied from 23 percent (Oklahoma

Poverty rates for AIAN working-age adults

and Alaska), to 41 percent (Plains), and 37

and the elderly during the 2006-to-2010

percent (Arizona/New Mexico).

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1.3 .39 - Po

9 - Povertverty Ra

y Rat tes, 2006-

es, 2006-10 10

AIAN Population

Tribal Areas

0.32

Surrounding Counties

0.28

Other Metropolitan areas

0.22

Other Non-metropolitan areas

0.26

United States – All Races

0.18

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Poverty Rate

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–10 Five-Year Estimates

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

35

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Notable regional differences also occurred

To respond to that question, the analysis relies

in the poverty gaps between the AIAN and

on the ACS 1-year estimates for 2008 and

non-AIAN populations. The AIAN poverty

2010 (the latest data available at the time of

rate was 3.1 times the non-AIAN rate in the

analysis). Three indicators summarize the main

Plains region and 2.9 times the non-AIAN

trends: (1) labor force participation rates, (2)

rate in Alaska. At the other extreme, the

unemployment rates, and (3) poverty rates.

AIAN rate was only 1.3 times the non-AIAN

The National Story

rates in the South Central region.

The earlier parts of this section showed that

How the AIAN Population Fared in

trends for the AIAN-alone population from

the Great Recession

2000 to the 2006-to-2010 period by these

economic indicators were mixed. The period

The earlier parts of this section have reported

saw almost no change in the AIAN labor

on socioeconomic conditions and trends

force participation rate, and the ratio of the

for American Indians and Alaska Natives by

AIAN rate to the non-AIAN rate had dropped

comparing 2000 decennial census data with

slightly. Modest improvements occurred,

those from the 2006–2010 ACS 5-year data.

however, in the AIAN unemployment

This base is important for understanding,

rate and poverty rate and, in both cases,

but it does not answer the question of how

gaps between AIAN and non-AIAN levels

America’s AIAN population weathered the

narrowed during the decade.

Great Recession of the past decade.

Exhibit 1.310 - Po

Exhibit 1.310 - Pov v

ert erty Ra

y Rat tes b

es by A y Age and Rac

ge and Race e, 2006–

, 2006–10 10

40

35

33.3

30

25

23.9

AIAN-alone

19.6

Non-AIAN-alone

20

19.1

15

12.5

9.5

for whom poverty status is known

10

Percent of population in poverty of those

5

0

Under 18

18 to 64

65 and older

Age group

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–10 Five-Year Estimates

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

36

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

The Native American population was more

increased slightly. The AIAN poverty rate

economically vulnerable in 2008 at the

went up from 1.85 times the non-AIAN

start of the Great Recession than was the

rate in 2008 to 1.87 times the non-AIAN

non-AIAN population, putting them in a

rate in 2010. Although this represented

worse position in the face of the rising

a substantial improvement in relation to

unemployment and falling earnings brought

the 2.1 ratio of 2000, disparities between

on by the economic downturn. The pace of

the two groups persist.

the economic deterioration, however, was

Regional Variations

not much worse than it was for the non-

AIAN population, and during the decade as

Because of sample-size limitations, reliable

a whole, gaps between AIAN and non-AIAN

data are not available for the detailed

performance had been reduced on some

geographies examined earlier in this

measures.

section. This analysis accordingly reviews

data only for the United States as a whole

•  The AIAN labor force participation rate

and for the four major Census Bureau

(as a percentage of the population older

regions: (1) Northeast, (2) Midwest, (3)

than 16) dropped slightly from 61 percent

South, and (4) West. The pattern of the

in 2008 to 59 percent in 2010. This

2008-to-2010 change for the four major

represented 0.93 of the non-AIAN rate in

U.S. regions seems consistent with what

both years, down modestly from the 0.95

might be expected, given discussion of the

ratio achieved in 2000.

variations in AIAN conditions among regions

•  The AIAN unemployment rate went up

earlier in this section. It is most disturbing

sharply from 11 percent in 2008 to 18

that Native Americans in the West region

percent in 2010, yet this measure for the

(which contains the two most distressed

non-AIAN population increased from 6.3

study regions—Plains and Arizona/New

to 11 percent. Although the gap between

Mexico—and 46 percent of the total AIAN

the two groups narrowed with the AIAN

population) were hit hardest by the Great

unemployment rate fal ing from 1.8 times

Recession (exhibit 1.311). Although not

the non-AIAN rate in 2008 to 1.7 times

directly comparable, Austin’s (2009) analysis

the non-AIAN rate in 2010 (a sizable

of the effects of the Great Recession on the

improvement over the 2.2 ratio in 2000),

AIAN population finds a similar pattern: the

the AIAN unemployment rate was still 7

West experienced the largest increase in

percentage points higher than that of the

the employment rate disparity between the

non-AIAN population.

AIAN and White populations between 2007

and 2009.26 The Great Recession effects

•  The AIAN poverty rate also saw

alternatively appear mildest in the South

considerable deterioration, rising from

(which contains the Oklahoma and South

24 percent in 2008 to 28 percent in

Central study regions and also the southern

2010, as compared with an increase

half of Eastern Woodlands).

from 13 percent in 2008 to 15 percent

in 2010 for the non-AIAN population.

In this case the AIAN/non-AIAN gap

26  Austin (2009) uses different definitions of region than those used by the U.S. Census Bureau; he breaks the United States into eight regions, of which the West (California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) and Southwest (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) are entirely contained within the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of the West region. Part of Austin’s Northern Plains region (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) is also contained within the U.S. Census Bureau’s West region, although he also includes Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota in the Northern Plains region. The largest disparity increases were found in the Northern Plains and Southwest.

Austin’s West region had the third largest disparity increase.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

37

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

•  Over this 2-year period, the AIAN labor

•  The West also saw by far the largest spike

force participation rate in the West

in unemployment—an increase of 8.6

dropped by 3 percentage points to

percentage points to reach a 21-percent

reach 57 percent. That decline was more

rate at the end of the period. The 2010

than twice the next largest (minus 1.4

rates for the other regions were 14

percent in the Northeast and Midwest),

percent (South), 15 percent (Northeast),

but the decline for the South was only

and 19 percent (Midwest)—increases for

0.27 percent. In 2010, the rates for the

these three were all in the 5.2-to-5.6-point

other three regions were in the 60-to-62-

range. In 2010, AIAN unemployment rates

percent range, well over that for the West.

were higher than were non-AIAN rates

AIAN labor force participation was almost

in all regions, but the range was wide: 1.3

as high as for non-AIAN in the South

higher in the South, 1.5 in the Northeast,

(0.99), but only 0.89 of the non-AIAN

and 1.8 in the Midwest and West. Those

level in the West.

ratios, however, were slightly better than

they had been in 2008 in all regions.

Exhibit 1.311 - AIAN Economic Indicators, 2008 to 2010

Percent

Percentage Point

Ratio to Non-AIAN

Change in Ratio

2010

Change

2010

2008 to 2010

2008 to 2010

AIAN-Alone Labor Force Participation Rate (Population 16 and Older)

United States

59.26

-1.77

0.93

-0.01

Northeast

61.28

-1.43

0.95

-0.01

Midwest

60.14

-1.41

0.92

0.00

South

62.04

-0.27

0.99

0.02

West

56.92

-3.00

0.89

-0.03

AIAN-Alone Unemployment Rate (Civilian Labor Force Age 16 and Older)

United States

17.88

6.73

1.66

-0.10

Northeast

14.67

5.65

1.48

-0.02

Midwest

18.58

5.22

1.76

-0.31

South

13.48

5.45

1.25

-0.02

West

21.15

8.56

1.81

-0.12

AIAN-Alone Poverty Rate

United States

28.44

4.20

1.87

0.02

Northeast

24.58

3.26

1.91

0.07

Midwest

33.02

2.59

2.29

-0.17

South

24.68

3.82

1.46

0.03

West

29.75

5.17

1.97

0.03

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, 2008 and 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

38

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

•  The Great Recession yielded sizable

1.4. Economic Development

increases in AIAN poverty in all regions,

Section 1.4 of this report comprises

but, again, the change for the West

adapted excerpts from section 4, Economic

was the most severe: an increase of 5.2

Development, of Pettit et al. (2014), this

percentage points to reach an overall rate

study’s interim report.

of 30 percent in 2010. The 2010 poverty

level was actual y higher in the Midwest

The most important driver of economic wel -

(33 percent), but the increase there was

being (and the ability to improve housing

not as large (2.6 points). Poverty rates in

conditions) in any area is the state of the

2010 reached 25 percent in the Northeast

local economy. This section looks more

(up 3.3 points from 2008) and in the

closely at economic development trends

South (up 3.8 points). Regarding poverty

for that part of the AIAN population that

at the end of the Great Recession, the

traditional y has been most distressed: those

AIAN/non-AIAN gap was also highest in

living on reservations and in other tribal

the Midwest (AIAN rate 2.3 times the non-

areas, and those living in the areas that

AIAN rate). The comparable ratios were

immediately surround them.

2.0 in the West, 1.9 in the Northeast, and

1.5 in the South. In this case, these ratios

The section begins by reviewing research by

were modestly higher than they had been

others that examined how private enterprise

in 2008 in all regions except the Midwest,

progressed in Indian Country throughout

where the ratio dropped from 2.5 to 2.3.

the 1990s. Only partial information is

available on what has happened since then,

Implications

but some new evidence is presented that

offers updates in two topical areas, and

The social and economic conditions of

the section discusses implications of those

Native American families are major drivers

findings. These areas are employment

of the housing needs and challenges

growth in the 2000s and tribally owned

discussed in part 2 of this report. Larger

businesses and enterprises, including

families, additional children, and the

gaming.

multigenerational households all relate to

the desired housing size and structure.

Background: Expansion of Economic

Policymakers should track the significant

Development in the 1990s

shifts, such as the fall in the share of

households with children younger than 18, to

At the end of the 1980s, the status of

project future demand for various housing

economic enterprise in Indian Country

types. Education levels and resulting

was uneven. Some tribes had achieved

employment opportunities for AIAN adults

considerable economic success by taking

determine the income available to pay for

advantage of a rich resource base, and

housing. Although it is good news that the

others had been successful in stimulating

AIAN community was not disproportionately

other forms of private business, but many

hit by the Great Recession, the fact remains

generated very few private-sector jobs

that the economic situation for AIAN

(Cornell and Kalt, 1989, 1992). A large

families has worsened considerably in

number of tribal areas had significant

the past few years; and as will be shown

dependent populations (high ratios of

in part 2, this translates to high levels of

children to working-age adults), high

housing problems.

unemployment, and federal jobs making

27   Private employees include those working for private firms and self-employed workers.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

39

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

up a large share of all employment. A

•  Emphasizing the rule of law means

good measure of independent economic

ensuring an environment in which the

health for an area is how many private

rules are clear about how collective

employees27 it has per 1,000 population. In

decisions will be made and how disputes

1990, the national average for this ratio was

will be resolved and in which there is

255; for AIAN tribal areas it was only 158

confidence the rules will be enforced.

(Kingsley et al., 1996).

The rule of law encourages private

business investment.

According to the Harvard Project on

American Indian Economic Development

•  Separating politics from day-to-day

(2008) (referred to, going forward, as the

administration and business affairs refers

Harvard Project), changes occurred over

to institutional change to reinforce the

the subsequent decade to the effect that

separation of powers in tribal governance—

“Economic development is taking root in

for example, ensuring an independent

Indian Country, albeit unevenly across tribes

judiciary—or creating independent boards

and industry sectors” (Harvard Project,

of directors for tribal enterprises.

2008: 111). They noted that—

•  Creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy

Past approaches to development by

entails efficient and reliable administration,

assimilation, by project-based job

good recordkeeping (taking advantage of

creation or by pursuing federal grants

today’s computer technology), and actions

are on the wane, largely because of

to facilitate business creation and operation

their repeated failure. Contemporary

(such as speeding up permitting processes).

nation-building approaches are in the

Gaming has been one important force behind

ascendancy, with tribes investing in

economic growth in Indian Country. Robinson

their own capacities to govern and

(1995) estimated that only 81 Indian gaming

thereby improving local accountability

operations were active nationwide in 1992.

and encouraging tribal and non-tribal

The number went up rapidly after that,

investments in human and other capital.

however, reaching 311 in 2000.

Over 1990–2000, for both Indian

nations with gaming enterprises and

Gaming profits have often been reinvested in

those without such operations, real per

tribal enterprise, and significant shares have

capita income in Indian Country grew at

been distributed to tribal members through

two to three times the rate experienced

per-capita payments, creating substantial

by the general U.S. population. (Harvard

wealth in some places; however, proceeds

Project, 2008: 111)

have been very uneven. The Harvard Project

(2008) concludes—

In their view, the shift in U.S. government

policy furthering self-determination for

A disproportionately large share of the

Indian tribes (of which NAHASDA was a

total casino revenue in Indian Country

part—see discussion in section 3.2) was vital

accrues to tribes that represent a small

among the underlying causes of this change.

share of the Indian population (near

With expanded freedom to select their own

population dense metropolitan areas)….

path, many tribes have chosen to strengthen

[gaming] is having only a limited effect

their own governance in ways that establish

on the economic fortunes of households

a foundation for entrepreneurialism. These

among large tribes remote from customer

ways include the following:

markets. (Harvard Project, 2008: 148)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

40

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Furthermore, the focus on gaming in the

Other evidence comes from the U.S.

press has created a distorted view of Indian

Department of Commerce County Business

economic development over this period.

Patterns series. This series shows total

Tribal area economies have also seen

U.S. employment at 113.1 million in 2000;

substantial expansion of other types of

20.7 million (or 18 percent) of those jobs

private enterprise.

were located in AIAN counties. From 2000

to 2007, however, employment in AIAN

Nongaming enterprises are proliferating

counties grew by 303,000 per year, 48

rapidly in Indian Country. Some of

percent of total U.S. job growth. The AIAN

these are large and visible (developed

county growth rate was 1.4 percent per year,

by tribes)… But development is also

dwarfing the 0.36 percent average for all

founded on businesses owned by

non-AIAN counties (exhibit 1.41).

private tribal citizens—from Burger

King franchises and Hampton Inns to

Most (87 percent) of the AIAN county jobs

paving companies, construction firms,

in 2000 were within the boundaries of

automobile repair shops, and cattle

metropolitan areas, and these grew much

ranches. (Harvard Project, 2008: 117)

faster during the 2000-to-2007 period than

did those outside of metropolitan areas: an

Total enterprise growth for the AIAN

annual rate of 1.5 percent compared with

population has been impressive.

0.68 percent (exhibit 1.42).

Government reports showed a total

of 102,000 Native-owned businesses

During the Great Recession, the patterns

nationwide in 1992. Over the subsequent

reversed. Places that performed best earlier

decade, the number had doubled, reaching

in the decade typical y faced the sharpest

201,000 in 2002. Native-owned businesses

reversals later on. The total number of jobs

had increased at an annual rate of 7

in AIAN counties dropped by 3.0 percent

percent compared with 2.9 percent for

per year from 2007 to 2010 compared with

all U.S. businesses (U.S. Minority Business

a drop of 2.3 percent annual y for non-AIAN

Development Agency, 2006).

counties. Among AIAN counties, annual rates

of decline were 3.1 percent in metropolitan

Employment Growth in the 2000s

areas and 2.5 percent in other areas.

Available evidence suggests that the

This national picture, however, masks sizable

economic environment for the AIAN

variations in performance across regions.

population continued to be strong through

During the 2000-to-2007 period, annual

2007, but then the Great Recession hit

employment growth was by far fastest in

Indian Country very hard, as it did the rest

AIAN counties in Arizona/New Mexico and

of the Nation.

California/Nevada—averaging 2.7 percent,

more than three times the average national

The number of AIAN-owned enterprises

rate. The next closest among AIAN counties

continued to grow rapidly in the middle

was Alaska (2.4 percent), but the absolute

years of the decade, reaching 237,000 by

numbers there were quite small. After that

2007. The 2002-to-2007 annual growth

came the Plains states (1.8 percent) and the

rate of 3.3 percent was clearly below the

Pacific Northwest (1.3 percent). The lowest

comparable AIAN rate for the 1992-to-

rate for AIAN counties was in the North

2002 period, but equal to the average for

Central and Eastern regions (0.44 and 0.43

all U.S. businesses for that period (U.S.

percent, respectively) (exhibit 1.43).

Census Bureau, 2011; U.S. Minority Business

Development Agency, 2006).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

41

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Among non-AIAN counties during this

years. Among AIAN counties, annual

period, the fastest rate of expansion was 3

employment loss rates in Arizona/New

percent per year in Arizona/New Mexico. It

Mexico and California/Nevada were in

is interesting that those in California/Nevada

the 4.4-to-4.5-percent range. Alaska

did not fare nearly as well (0.17 percent).

actually registered a modest increase, but

Intermediate growth rates were realized

again the amount was small (1.4 percent

in the Pacific Northwest (1.6 percent) and

or 9,100 jobs). Rates of decline almost

the Plains (1.2 percent)—not much different

everywhere else were more than 2 percent.

from the rates for AIAN counties in those

AIAN counties in the South Central region

regions. Non-AIAN counties in the North

registered the best record (a decline of 0.16

Central region (the main rust-belt states)

percent per year) and Oklahoma (a decline

actually lost employment, even more than

of 1.7 percent per year).

this prerecession growth period (by 0.64

What has been the net effect of these

percent per year).

changes on employment from 2000 to

2010? During the full decade, employment

During the Great Recession, similar

in AIAN counties grew slightly (by about

variation existed across regions, and the

0.65 percent), whereas the number of jobs

rule generally held that those that had

in non-AIAN counties actual y declined (by

performed best earlier in the decade had

almost 4.5 percent).

the worst record in the Great Recession

Exhibit 1.41 - Employment Trends in AIAN Counties from 2000 to 2010

Exhibit 1.41 - Employment Trends in AIAN Counties from 2000 to 2010

2

AIAN

1.4

counties

Non-AIAN

counties

0.36

0.06

0

-0.46

Annual percent change

-2

-2.3

-3

4

2000 to 2007

2007 to 2010

2000 to 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

42

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Tribally Owned Businesses and

announced that it is expanding globally,

focusing on Latin America, Eastern

Enterprises

Europe, and Asia (De la Merced, 2006;

The expansion and diversification of tribally

Stuts, 2012).

owned businesses noted earlier for the

•  Tulalip Tribes in Washington built

1990s continued into the 2000s. This has

Quil Ceda Vil age, a highly successful

occurred both on and off the reservations.

commercial development that includes

Types of businesses include hotels and

outlets, anchor stores such as Home Depot

resorts, golf courses, manufacturing, oil

and Walmart, and a number of other retail

extraction companies, mining, coal and

businesses (Harvard Project, 2003).

natural resources, timber, and wild game

hunting. Examples include—

•  Menominee Tribal Enterprises (MTE), a

lumber production company operating

•  The Seminole Tribe of Florida purchased

since 1908, employs about 300 people.

the Hard Rock Hotel Café and Restaurant

MTE practices sustainable yield forestry

chain for $965 million—the first time

and operates a mill. In recent years, the

an Indian tribe had ever purchased a

tribe has been branching out, exporting

major international corporation. The

some products as far as China, and using

tribe continued to make news when it

Exhibit 1.42 - Employment in AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000, 2007 and 2010

Study Region

United

States N. Central Eastern Oklahoma S. Central

Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW Alaska

Number of Employees (thousands)

Total, 2000

113,138

8,863

63,966

1,194

14,039

4,591

2,450

13,760

4,071

203

Total, 2007

117,597

8,635

65,248

1,282

14,961

5,022

2,955

14,756

4,496

241

Total, 2010

109,083

7,878

60,566

1,221

14,431

4,767

2,588

13,240

4,146

247

AIAN counties, 2000

20,690

2,159

6,992

1,154

411

679

2,284

4,223

2,609

178

AIAN counties, 2007

22,810

2,226

7,207

1,238

441

772

2,751

5,104

2,861

211

AIAN counties, 2010

20,822

2,085

6,660

1,176

439

732

2,397

4,458

2,655

220

Non-AIAN counties, 2000

92,448

6,704

56,974

40

13,628

3,912

166

9,537

1,462

25

Non-AIAN counties, 2007

94,787

6,410

58,041

45

14,520

4,250

204

9,652

1,636

30

Non-AIAN counties, 2010

88,261

5,793

53,906

44

13,992

4,035

191

8,782

1,491

27

Percent of Employees, 2010

Total

100.0

7.2

55.5

1.1

13.2

4.4

2.4

12.1

3.8

0.2

AIAN counties

100.0

10.0

32.0

5.7

2.1

3.5

11.5

21.4

12.8

1.1

Non-AIAN counties

100.0

6.6

61.1

0.1

15.9

4.6

0.2

10.0

1.7

0.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

43

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

sophisticated logging machinery to

Business Network (AIBN). The AIBN

ensure that all parts of the tree are used.

provides an opportunity for tribal businesses

MTE is also planning a biomass electrical

to showcase their products and interact

plant that will use forest waste to produce

with other business owners and potential

electricity (Thornton, n.d.; Trosper, 2007).

customers. It also allows for networking

among tribal leaders, Indian entrepreneurs,

•  The Chickasaw Nation owns and

and other tribal government businesses.

operates a wide variety of businesses.

In 2000, the tribe purchased Bedré Fine

Indian gaming—when tribes own and

Chocolate. The production facility, in

operate casinos—also continued to play an

Davis, Oklahoma, uses state-of-the-art

important role in the 2000s. In 2001, 201

machinery to ensure the ingredient mix is

of the 561 federally recognized tribes (36

controlled, guaranteeing a superior and

percent) operated one or more gaming

more consistent product. The Chickasaw

operations (Hillabrant, et al., 2004).

Nation opened Bank2, a full-service

According to the National Indian Gaming

community bank, in 2002. Headquartered

Association (NIGA) (2009), by 2006,

in Oklahoma City since January 2002,

224 tribes (40 percent) operated gaming

the bank’s assets have grown from

facilities. By the end of 2009, that number

$7.5 million to more than $100 million

increased to 237 (42 percent).

(Bank2, n.d.; Bedré Fine Chocolate, 2006;

The total number of gaming operations has

Chickasaw Nation, 2013).

also grown. The National Indian Gaming

The institutional infrastructure supporting

Commission (NIGC) reported in 2000 that

the expansion of tribally owned enterprise

about 311 tribal gaming enterprises were

has also strengthened since 2000. This

operating throughout the United States; by

includes new supports for networking

the end of 2006, the number rose to 394

and collaboration. One advance was the

nationwide. The number reached 421 at the

establishment of the American Indian

end of fiscal year (FY) 2011 (NIGC, 2012b).

Exhibit 1.43 - Employment Trends in  AIAN and Non-AIAN Counties by Study Region, 2000 to 2010

United

North

South

Arizona/

Calif./

Pacific

States

Central

Eastern Oklahoma Central

Plains

N. Mexico

Nevada Northwest Alaska

Percent Employment Change per Year,

2000 to 2007 (Growth Period)

Total

0.6

-0.4

0.3

1.0

0.9

1.3

2.7

1.0

1.4

2.4

AIAN counties

1.4

0.4

0.4

1.0

1.0

1.8

2.7

2.7

1.3

2.4

Non-AIAN counties

0.4

-0.6

0.3

1.4

0.9

1.2

3.0

0.2

1.6

2.7

Percent Employment Change per Year,

2007 to 2010 (Great Recession)

Total

-2.5

-3.0

-2.5

-1.6

-1.2

-1.7

-4.3

-3.5

-2.7

0.9

AIAN counties

-3.0

-2.2

-2.6

-1.7

-0.2

-1.8

-4.5

-4.4

-2.5

1.4

Non-AIAN counties

-2.3

-3.3

-2.4

-0.2

-1.2

-1.7

-2.2

-3.1

-3.0

-3.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2000, 2007, 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

44

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Gaming revenues have flourished as well. By

Indian gaming revenues, and the 78 largest

the end of FY 2000, NIGC found that AIAN

(18 percent) accounted for close to 75

gaming enterprises generated about $11

percent of all tribal gaming revenues.

billion in total revenues. Six years later, NIGC

NIGA (2011) conducted a more in-depth

reported that revenues increased to about

analysis and found that in addition to the

$24.9 billion for the 394 gaming facilities at

$26 billion generated from gaming revenue

the time. After that, gaming revenues rose

in 2009, tribal governments also generated

and then leveled off in the $26 to $27 billion

billions in other gaming-related services

range. In 2011, revenues reached $27.2 billion

and taxes. For example, they report that

from 421 gaming operations (NIGC, 2012b).

tribal governments generated about $3.2

As noted earlier, gaming operations and

billion from gaming-related hospitality and

revenues were very uneven across tribal

entertainment services (that is, resorts,

areas in the 1990s. That continued to be the

hotels, restaurants, golf, entertainment

case in the 2000s. Exhibit 1.44 shows that

complexes, and travel centers);

a small number of enterprises have been

approximately $9.4 billion in federal taxes

highly successful, but the great majority has

and revenue savings (including employer

not been as fortunate. Of the 421 gaming

and employee Social Security taxes,

facilities operating in 2011, one in every three

income taxes, excise taxes, and savings on

generated less than $3 million in gaming

unemployment and welfare payments); and

revenues. Close to one-half generated

about $2.4 billion in state taxes, revenue

between $10 million and $100 million, and

sharing, and regulatory payments (including

less than one-fifth generated more than

state income, sales, and excise taxes;

$100 million in gaming revenue.

regulatory payments; and revenue sharing

pursuant to tribal-state compacts).

Among the tribal gaming facilities, the

23 largest tribal enterprises (5 percent)

Tribal governments allocated the largest

generated about 38 percent of the total

share of gaming revenues (20 percent)

Exhibit 1.44 - Gaming Operations by Revenue Size Category, 2011

Percent

Dollar Amount  (in Thousands)

Number of Tribal

Revenues (in

Gaming Revenue Range

Gaming Operations Thousands of Dollars)

Operations

Revenues

Mean

Median

Total

421

27,153,808

$250 million and over

23

10,421,992

5.5

36.4

453,130

378,397

$100 to $250 million

55

9,065,678

13.1

33.4

164,831

156,252

$50 to $100 million

52

3,639,595

12.4

13.4

69,992

66,151

$25 to $50 million

55

1,902,860

13.4

7.0

34,597

32,784

$10 to $25 million

98

1,629,551

23.6

6.0

16,628

15,753

$3 to $10 million

70

413,441

16.6

1.5

5,906

5,525

Under $3 million

68

80,691

16.2

0.3

1,187

1,010

Note: Data are compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through June 20, 2012.

Source: National Indian Gaming Commission 2012a.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

45

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

toward education, children and the elderly,

encourage entrepreneurship among the

culture, charity, and other purposes; 19

AIAN population more broadly.

percent to economic development; 17

percent for both healthcare and police

1.5. Diversity Among Tribal Areas

and fire protection; and 16 percent for

The last two sections offer some grounds

infrastructure. Housing received the smallest

for optimism. Since 2000, the gaps for some

share (11 percent) (NIGA, 2009).

measures (for example, unemployment rate,

poverty rate) have narrowed somewhat,

Gaming has also had an impact on

and a vigorous new spirit of enterprise in

employment. Tribal gaming created more

many tribal areas seems to be creating a

than 628,000 direct and indirect jobs

foundation for better times ahead; however,

for tribal and surrounding communities

troubling conditions remain. As has been

(NIGA, 2009). These numbers are based on

the case since reliable measurement in this

estimates derived from economic models

country began, the economic circumstances

of regional economies that use multipliers

of the AIAN population remain more

to estimate the impacts of inputs such as

problematic than those of other Americans

dollars invested. These jobs include level-one

almost everywhere, and those in tribal areas

jobs (jobs that are directly created by Indian

remain more dire than for AIAN people in

gaming facilities themselves, the ancil ary

the rest of the United States.

businesses connected to the gaming

facilities, and other tribal government and

As Kingsley et al. (1996) pointed out,

enterprise positions); level-two jobs (those

however, conditions in tribal areas vary from

supported by tribal employees spending

each other dramatical y. Some are much

their wages); and level-three jobs (those

better off, and are on significantly better

created indirectly, assuming that 75 percent

growth trajectories, than others. This section

of goods and services were purchased

uses selected demographic, economic,

local y and 25 percent outside the region).

and other indicators, to examine tribal area

diversity in this new century and to see if

The benefits from Indian gaming may not

these conclusions still hold. A regression

be as secure as in the past, however, as the

analysis was conducted to test the

future appears to hold more competition.

association of these indicators, described

In some places, it seems likely that state

in later sections, with three dependent

government prohibitions will be relaxed

variables: (1) percent of households

to permit the expansion of private casino-

considered overcrowded, (2) percent of

style gaming outside of Indian areas. More

households considered cost burdened, and

threatening, perhaps, may be the movement

(3) percent of households without complete

toward legalizing Internet gaming (which

plumbing facilities.

would give states the ability to regulate and

tax online gaming, even on reservations).

To analyze such diversity, Kingsley et al.

This would allow people to play games like

(1996) used 1990 census data that covered

poker on their mobile devices whenever

virtual y all tribal areas. Smaller sample sizes

and wherever they want. In June 2012,

in the ACS prevent reliable reporting of

Delaware became the first state to legalize

conditions in many smaller tribal areas; yet,

casino-style gambling on the Internet. These

as explained by Pettit et al. 2014, p.50), the

shifts highlight the importance of efforts

Census Bureau’s selected population tables

to diversify tribal y owned enterprises and

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

46

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

for the 2006–2010 ACS do report relevant

was +6.2 percent but the rates for the

indicators individual y for tribal areas with

middle half of the distribution ranged

sufficiently large AIAN populations. Such

from -2.5 to +17.1 percent.

data are available for 230 of the 617 total

3. Income ratio (ratio of the tribal area’s

tribal areas, which account for a very high

AIAN-alone median household income to

share of the total tribal area AIAN-alone

the median household income for rural

population nationwide.

areas in its state as of the 2006-to-2010

This analysis assesses tribal diversity

period). The median value was 0.52 with

using a slightly smaller group: 213 of the

the middle half of the distribution fal ing

230 tribal areas (records were deleted for

between 0.42 and 0.68.

state-designated tribal areas that are not

4. Income change (percent change in the

IHBG grantees and for others where major

area’s AIAN-alone median income from

redefinitions of boundaries between 2000

2000 to the 2006-to-2010 period). The

and 2010 made it impossible to present

median value was -2.0 percent but the

reliable comparisons over time). These 213

middle half of the distribution ranged

areas had a 2010 AIAN-alone population of

from -20.3 to 14.7 percent.

861,000, the equivalent of 89 percent of the

total AIAN-alone population in tribal areas.

5. Private employment (among the area’s

The 2010 AIAN-alone populations of these

AIAN-alone population, the percent that

areas ranged from the smallest at 155 to

are private-sector employees—as of

166,800 (Navajo, which, as pointed out earlier,

the 2006-to-2010 period). The median

is by far the nation’s largest tribal area).

was 11.8 percent but the middle half fell

between 7.0 and 17.2 percent.

Indicators and Hypotheses

6. High school graduates (among the area’s

For these 213 tribal areas, the analysis

AIAN-alone population 25 years of age or

includes eight indicators that might influence

older, the percentage that have high school

tribal economic wel -being and, thereby,

diplomas—as of the 2006-to-2010 period).

housing conditions, and analyzed their

The median value was 79.6 percent but the

association with three direct measures of

middle half of the distribution ranged from

housing conditions. Data for all but gaming

72.2 to 85.0 percent.

were derived from the 2000 census, the

2010 census, and/or the 2006–2010 ACS.

7. Gaming (Yes, if the tribe had at least one

The source of gaming data is NIGC (2012b).

gaming establishment as of March 2011).

The eight indicators are—

8. Remoteness (the distance in miles

between the centroid of the geography

1.  Population size (the area’s total 2010

of the tribal area and the nearest census

AIAN-alone population). As shown on

“place” with a 2010 population of 100,000

exhibit 1.51, the median population was

or more). The median value was 88 miles

890. The middle half of the distribution

with the middle half of the distribution

ranged from 494 (25th percentile) to

fal ing between 48 and 258 miles. As an

2,906 (75th percentile).

indicator of “remoteness,” Kingsley et

2. Population growth (percentage change

al. (1996) found that a similar distance

in the area’s AIAN-alone population from

measure was a significant predictor of

2000 to 2010). The median growth rate

1990 economic outcomes in tribal areas.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

47

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

The analysis also included three indicators

Regarding the first eight indicators, the

of housing problems whose values are likely

hypothesis is that a tribal area is likely to

to be influenced by the indicators noted

be better off with respect to the three

previously. All of these indicators are derived

indicators of housing problems if it has

from the 2006–2010 ACS. These indicators

a large AIAN-alone population, if that

will be examined in much more depth in

population is growing rapidly, if its AIAN-

section 2 of this report.

alone income is more than that for the

rural portions of its state, if that income is

•   Cost burden (the tribal area’s share of

growing rapidly, if private-sector employees

AIAN-alone households paying more than

make up a large share of its population, if

30 percent of their income for housing.

high school graduates account for a large

The median value was 24 percent, with

share of its adult population, if it has at

the middle half of the distribution ranging

least one gaming establishment and if it is

from 17 to 30 percent).

located close to a large city. The private-

sector employment indicator should

•   Overcrowding (the percent of AIAN-alone

be interpreted with caution, however,

households in the tribal area with more

because three types of employment exist

than one person per room). The median

in Indian Country: (1) private, (2) public,

was 8.9 percent with the middle half

and (3) state-owned or tribally owned

ranging from 4.5 to 17.9 percent.

enterprise. Employment data for this last

•   Lack of plumbing (the share of the tribal

category is not available separately, and

area’s AIAN-alone households that lack

may be included in totals for private-

complete plumbing facilities). Median of

and public-sector employment, depending

1.3 percent, with the middle half ranging

on definitions used by tribes or states. Such

between 0.0 and 6.0 percent.

definitions are not uniformly applied. For

Exhibit 1.51 - Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity

Median 50th

Coeff. Of

Standard

Mean

Percentile

25th Percentile

75th Percentile

variation

deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Independent variables

Population  size

4,041

890

494

2,906

3.59

14,499

155

166,824

Population growth

9.0

6.2

(2.5)

17.1

2.28

20.4

(33.6)

113.0

Income Ratio

0.57

0.52

0.42

0.68

0.37

0.21

0.20

1.38

Income change

(0.6)

(2.0)

(20.3)

14.7

(54.24)

29.9

(67.5)

146.7

Private employment

13.3

11.8

7.0

17.2

0.58

7.7

2.3

44.2

High school graduates

78.5

79.6

72.2

85.0

0.12

9.1

52.6

96.1

Gaming

0.6

1.0

-

1.0

0.81

0.5

-

1.0

Remoteness

202

88

48

258

1.12

225

3

857

Housing problem indicators

Cost burden

23.6

23.6

16.7

29.7

0.44

10.4

3.9

58.6

Overcrowding

14.5

8.9

4.5

17.9

1.08

15.6

-

70.7

Lack plumbing

7.3

1.3

-

6.0

2.40

17.6

-

100.0

Note:  Data cover 213 larger tribal areas.  See text for explanation and definition of indicators.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010, American Community Survey 2006-10 5-Year Estimates, 2006-10 Selected Population Tables, and NIGC address data.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

48

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

example, New Mexico classifies gaming

these two variables are negatively correlated

employment as government employment.

with cost burden—again as expected.

Regarding the housing indicators, the

Fairly strong correlations also exist

hypothesis is that physical housing problem

between the physical housing problems

measures (overcrowding and lack of

and several other indicators. A strong,

plumbing) are positively correlated with

positive relationship exists between

each other and negatively correlated with

overcrowding and remoteness (0.62), and

cost burden. Cost burdens are general y

inverse relationships are evident between

higher in places where economies are strong

overcrowding and gaming (-0.44), high

and housing costs are high—the opposite of

school graduation rates (-0.37), and private-

the pattern for physical housing problems.

employment rates (-0.43). In other words,

physical housing problems are likely to be

Diversity and Correlation Analysis

worse in tribal areas that are more remote

and not as bad in tribal areas that have

The data indicate that conditions in U.S.

gaming and higher rates of high school

tribal areas remain extremely diverse. This

graduation and private employment.

was suggested by the previous discussion,

showing the wide interquartile ranges

Mapping Analysis

(range between values at the 25th and 75th

percentiles, covering the middle half of the

The maps in exhibits 1.53 through 1.56 plot

distribution of larger tribal areas) for most

the geographical distributions of the top

of the indicators. The conclusion is strongly

and bottom quartiles of the 213 larger tribal

reinforced by the data in exhibit 1.51 on

areas for four of these indicators.

coefficients of variation (standard deviation

Comparative  rates of population change do

divided by the mean) for each indicator.

not show a distinct regional pattern (exhibit

The smallest of these (indicating the least

1.53). Tribal areas with the fastest population

variation or diversity) is for the percent of

growth and those with the sharpest

adults that have high school degrees (0.12).

population losses are in all parts of the

Other coefficients that fall below 1.00 are for

country, although some concentrations exist.

the income ratio (.37), cost burden (0.44),

Many of the most rapidly growing areas

the private-employment percentage (0.58),

are in the Midwest (from Oklahoma north

and gaming (0.81). At the other extreme,

through Minnesota and Michigan) and in the

those that exhibit the most diversity are

Pacific Northwest, and many with the most

income change (54.24), population size

serious loss rates are in Arizona and Alaska.

(3.59), lacking plumbing facilities (2.40), and

Regional patterns are clearer regarding the

population growth (2.28).

share of the tribal area population with

Although many of the relationships between

private-sector jobs. This is a reasonably

individual indicators on the correlation

good indicator of economic wel -being

matrix (exhibit 1.52) are weak, these numbers

(exhibit 1.54), keeping in mind the caveat

general y confirm most of the hypotheses

that classification of employment in tribal y

noted previously. The strongest relationship

owned enterprises is likely to vary across

on the table, as expected, is the high

the country. The top quartile for private-

correlation between overcrowding and lack

employment percentage (17 percent or

of plumbing facilities (correlation coefficient

more) is most clustered in Oklahoma, with

of 0.66). Although the coefficients are low,

secondary clusters in New Mexico, Michigan

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

49

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

and the Carolinas. Clusters from the quartile

As expected, areas with high overcrowding

ranking lowest by this indicator (less than 7

rates tend to have lower rates of housing

percent) are in Arizona and the Plains states.

cost burden. Clusters of tribal areas with the

It is interesting that Alaska has clusters at

highest cost burdens occur in Oklahoma,

both ends of the spectrum for this measure.

Minnesota and Michigan, and the Pacific

Several tribal areas with high private-sector

Northwest. Those where the cost burden

employment are found along the state’s

problem is least serious are most clustered

southern coast, but those with lower private-

in Arizona/New Mexico and Alaska.

sector employment are found along the

Regression Analysis

state’s north and northwest coasts.

To further test these relationships, this study

The pattern for  overcrowding is essentially

conducted a regression analysis, assigning

the reverse of that for private employment.

the three housing problem indicators (cost

Many of the tribal areas with the highest

burden, overcrowding, and lack of plumbing)

rates of overcrowding are in Arizona, the

as dependent variables, and all other

Plains states and the north/north west

indicators as independent variables.

coast of Alaska. As noted in section 1.3,

these same regions also stand out in terms

The analysis is presented in full in appendix

of high AIAN poverty rates. Clusters in the

C. It general y confirmed expectations based

lowest quartile for overcrowding occur in

on the previous discussion. Results were

Oklahoma, the north central and northeast

strongest for the relationship between the

regions, Nevada and the Pacific Northwest.

independent variables and overcrowding,

Exhibit 1.52 - Correlation Matrix: Indicators Related to Tribal Area Diversity

Independent variables

Housing problem indicators

Popul.

Income

Income

Private

High

Remote-

Cost

Over-

Lack

Popul. size

growth

ratio

change

employ.

school

Gaming

ness

burden

crowded

plumbing

Independent variables

Population size

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Population growth

0.01

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Income ratio

(0.46)

0.17

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Income change

0.00

0.11

0.56

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Private employment

0.12

0.16

0.19

(0.03)

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

-

High school graduates

(0.10)

(0.00)

0.09

0.04

0.27

1.00

-

-

-

-

-

Gaming

0.12

0.14

(0.01)

0.06

0.17

0.18

1.00

-

-

-

-

Remoteness

(0.13)

(0.31)

(0.06)

(0.13)

(0.26)

0.00

(0.59)

1.00

-

-

-

Housing problem indicators

Cost burden

0.03

(0.01)

(0.36)

(0.27)

0.12

0.13

0.08

(0.03)

1.00

-

-

Overcrowded

(0.05)

(0.07)

(0.04)

0.09

(0.43)

(0.37)

(0.44)

0.62

(0.14)

1.00

-

Lack plumbing

(0.01)

(0.13)

(0.10)

0.05

(0.28)

(0.21)

(0.39)

0.52

(0.1 )

0.66

1.00

Note:  Data cover 213 larger tribal areas.  See text for explanation and definition of indicators.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010, American Community Survey 2006-10 5-Year Estimates, 2006-10 Selected Population Tables, and NIGC address data.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

50

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.53 - Highes

Exhibit 1.53 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perc cen

en t Change in Popula

t Change in Popula tion, 2000-

tion, 2000- 20

201010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo, 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Tri reas

bal Areas

Exhibit 1.54 - Highes

Exhibit 1.54 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perc cen

en t of Popula

t of Popula tion Emplo

tion Employ yed in Priva

ed in the Privte Sec

at tor

e Sect , 2006-

or

20

, 2006 t 10

o 2010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo , 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Tri reas

bal Areas

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

51

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

Exhibit 1.5

Exhibit 1.5 5 - Highes

5 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perc cen

en t of Households Ov

t of Households Overer

cr cr

o o

w wded, 2006-

ded, 2006 t 10

o 2010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo , 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Tri reas

bal Areas

Exhibit 1.56 - Highes

Exhibit 1.56 - Highes t and L

t and L o

o w

w es

es t Per

t Perccen

en t of Households P

t of Households Pa aying Mor

ying Mor e than 30 Per

e Than 30 Perc c

enent of Inc

t of Inc ome f

ome f or Housing, 2006-

or Housing, 2006 t 10

o 2010

AIAN alone households

AIAN-alone househo, 213 L

lds, 2 ar

1 ger T

3 Lar ribal A

ger Trireas

bal Areas

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

52

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

producing an adjusted R2 of 0.52. Median

population center increased and population

income growth, population growth, the

growth increased. Private employment and

percent of the AIAN population with at

the percent of the population with a high

least a high school education, the rate of

school education, on the other hand, had a

AIAN private employment, and remoteness

negative relationship with overcrowding. The

were all statistical y significant (0.05 level).

relationship between income growth and

The relationship between overcrowding and

overcrowding was positive (higher growth

both remoteness and population growth

rates are associated with higher rates of

was positive, indicating that overcrowding

overcrowding), which is unexpected, but the

increased as distance from the nearest large

effect was relatively smal .

Exhibit 1.57 - Diversity Among Tribal Areas, Regression Results

Dependent Variable

Overcrowding

Plumbing Deficiency

Cost Burden

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Intercept

37.97***

35.65***

61.08***

20.39**

16.64

41.87***

18.39***

19.25***

19.93***

-7.458

-7.351

-7.992

-10.061

-9.944

-10.038

-6.571

-6.442

-6.090

Ratio of AIAN median

-5.40

-5.03

-2.95

-14.52**

-13.93**

-12.24

-18.63***

-18.76***

-18.46***

income to state rural

median income

-4.511

-4.523

-5.197

-6.085

-6.119

-6.527

-3.974

-3.964

-3.960

Pct growth AIAN median HH

0.1***

0.1***

0.07

0.12***

0.12***

0.09**

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

income

-0.031

-0.031

-0.036

-0.042

-0.042

-0.045

-0.027

-0.027

-0.027

AIAN private employees per

-0.49***

-0.5***

-0.6***

-0.25

-0.26

-0.35**

0.21**

0.21**

0.2**

100 AIAN population

-0.107

-0.108

-0.123

-0.145

-0.146

-0.155

-0.095

-0.095

-0.094

AIAN population (norm.)

0.08

0.07

0.02

0.13

0.11

0.07

0.00

0.01

0.00

-0.088

-0.088

-0.102

-0.119

-0.120

-0.128

-0.078

-0.078

-0.077

Pct growth AIAN population

0.1 ***

0.1 ***

0.02

0.04

0.04

-0.04

0.02

0.02

0.02

-0.039

-0.039

-0.044

-0.053

-0.053

-0.055

-0.035

-0.034

-0.033

Pct of AIAN population 25+

-0.26***

-0.27***

-0.38***

-0.07

-0.08

-0.19

0.15

0.15

0.14

with at least HS degree

-0.089

-0.089

-0.101

-0.119

-0.120

-0.127

-0.078

-0.078

-0.077

Gaming

-3.08

-1 .62***

-4.99

-12.92***

1.14

0.58

-1.892

-1.836

-2.553

-2.305

-1.667

-1.399

Remoteness (norm.)

0.31***

0.35***

0.29***

0.35***

0.02

0.01

-0.038

-0.032

-0.051

-0.043

-0.033

-0.028

Adjusted R2

0.52

0.52

0.36

0.31

0.31

0.21

0.16

0.16

0.16

Model 1: All Indicators; Model 2: Gaming indicator excluded; Model 3: Remoteness indicator excluded

***p<0.01

**  p<0.05

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

53

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions

The impact of gaming operations on

overcrowding was not significant. Given

the relatively strong negative correlation

between gaming and remoteness, it appears

that remoteness is the more decisive factor

affecting overcrowding.

The AIAN populations most likely to

experience overcrowded conditions are in

more remote communities where private-

sector employment is at the lower end

of the range, education levels are low,

and population growth is relatively high;

communities with higher-income growth

also tend to be more overcrowded.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

54

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Part 2. Housing Conditions  assessment: What are the housing problems

and needs of tribal area AIAN populations

and Needs

and how have they changed during the past

two decades? It opens with a framework

that defines the various attributes of housing

that, consistent with national standards, are

2.1. Introduction

regarded as problems, and how they may be

Part 2 is the heart of this report. It

looked at together. The section next presents

examines evidence from several sources

the objective findings at the national level

on the changing housing circumstances of

drawn from the household survey. The

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)

household survey is the only data source

populations. It looks at general conditions

that provides authoritative information on al

of the housing in which AIAN families

dimensions of housing problems and needs

reside and also their housing problems and

in Indian Country. The household survey

needs. It focuses on conditions in tribal

uses a national y representative sample to

areas and the counties that surround them.

create national estimates of housing needs

It offers new insights on the definition

for all of Indian Country, including the Alaska

of overcrowding and homelessness in

tribal areas. Census data cover only some

Indian Country.28 In addition, because

of the dimensions, so are reviewed next

homeownership is seen as a key policy issue,

because they permit analysis of regional

it looks in some depth at homeownership

variations, which the national household

trends in tribal areas and how the residents

survey sample does not.

of those areas regard the importance of

This section then presents information

owning their own homes.

from the household survey on how tribal

Section 2.2 reviews general characteristics

area residents view their current housing

that describe housing in Indian Country.

conditions, including levels of satisfaction

The section begins by presenting data on

overall and their views about the extent

the growth of the total housing stock and

to which their housing reflects and is

changes in vacancy rates in tribal areas

sensitive to their tribal culture. The section

between 1990 and 2010, contrasting trends

closes by examining the views of tribal

in different regions. It then reviews trends

area housing administrators on housing

in several descriptive characteristics—the

conditions in tribal areas.

distribution of the stock by tenure, structure

One of the most complex sets of housing

type, age of structure, unit size, and home

issues in Indian Country lies in the

values and rent levels—also considering

relationship between overcrowding and

regional variations when possible. Although

homelessness. AIAN households are larger,

much of the material in this section is based

on average, than non-AIAN households, in

on census data adapted from this project’s

part due to the fact that more of them are

interim report (Pettit et al., 2014), it also

multigenerational by choice. Some say that

adds interpretive information on these

AIAN families are often wil ing to accept

topics, when possible, from the surveys and

some overcrowding to keep their extended

interviews in Indian Country.

families together under one roof, but more

Section 2.3 presents findings related to

housing options might allow families to stay

the central questions that motivated this

together without overcrowding. The belief is

28  “Indian Country” is used in the common colloquial sense to mean tribal areas, including Alaska Native villages.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

55

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

common, however, that some households are

Full decennial census data (2000 and 2010)

also taking in individuals who are not family

fortunately are available for three of these

members and would otherwise be homeless.

measures (housing stock size, vacancy rates

What are appropriate guidelines for policy

and tenure) and the Census Bureau releases

in these circumstances? These interrelated

data for all the geographies of interest on

issues are explored in section 2.4, bringing

structure type. For the other measures,

together census data on household types

however, the Census Bureau releases

and sizes along with household survey data

American Community Survey (ACS) data

on variations in household composition in

only via its selected population tables (noted

various types of housing, and views on these

in section 1.5 and explained more ful y in

topics gleaned from the tribal/TDHE survey

later sections), and this means the data are

and onsite interviews.

not available for all tribal areas but only for

230 of the larger areas.

After a more complete examination of

homeownership levels and trends by region

The Housing Stock in Indian Country

using census data, part 2 closes with section

Because 6 out of 10 AIAN people live in

2.5, drawing mostly on the household and

tribal areas or the surrounding counties,

tribal/TDHE survey and interviews conducted

understanding AIAN housing conditions

with officials and community leaders on site

should begin with reviewing the context

visits. It reviews the extent of preferences for

of the overall housing markets in those

homeownership in Indian Country and the

areas—housing stock that accommodates

factors that influence the degree to which

non-AIAN and also AIAN households. The

those preferences are being realized (for

number of housing units in tribal areas

example, land problems and other barriers to

totaled 2.1 mil ion in 2010, representing an 8.1

mortgage lending). Again, current conditions

percent increase over the number in 2000.

are explored, while considering recent trends

This growth rate was considerably slower

and future potential.

than the 14 percent experienced for the U.S.

2.2. Housing Characteristics

housing stock as a whole, but this is to be

expected given the slower rate of overall

This section describes general

population growth in tribal areas.

characteristics of housing occupied by

American Indians and Alaska Natives. As

Tribal areas in some regions, however, did

such it provides understanding of the overall

experience more rapid net increases in total

housing context that sets the stage for our

housing stock (exhibit 2.21). The number of

deeper analysis of housing problems and

tribal area housing units in Alaska increased

needs in the section to follow. This section

by a rapid 24 percent. At the other extreme,

covers a range of topics that are key to

about 1,000 units were lost in Arizona/New

understanding context: the overall size of

Mexico tribal areas, a 0.7 percent reduction.

the housing stock, vacancy rates, tenure

The growth rates for tribal areas in the

(renter versus owner), structure type, age

remaining regions ranged from 1.5 (South

of structure, unit size, home values, and

Central) to 15 (Pacific Northwest) percent.

rent levels. The focus is on tribal areas and

By contrast with the slower tribal area

their surrounding counties, but the section

increases, the surrounding counties

compares conditions there with those in

experienced higher growth than the national

other parts of the country where it seems

average. In these counties, units increased by

most valuable to do so.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

56

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

15 percent, climbing to a total of 25 mil ion

rates rose by about 2.4 percentage points

housing units in 2010. The high growth rate

(exhibit 2.22). The tribal areas’ comparatively

of housing in surrounding counties was

slow building rate during the decade may

driven largely by growth in three regions:

have cushioned them somewhat from the

Plains and California/Nevada saw growth

severe damage related to overbuilding (for

rates of 22 percent, and those in the Arizona/

example, vacancies due to unfinished units

New Mexico region rose by 29 percent.

or foreclosures) felt in many areas due to the

U.S. housing market crash.

Vacancy Rates

Like changes in housing stock, the vacancy

The last decennial census defined vacant

rates for tribal areas vary widely by region

housing units as those habitable units

(exhibit 2.23). The highest vacancy rate for

that were absent of occupants as of April

tribal areas in 2010 was found in California/

1, 2010. The vacancy rate for tribal areas

Nevada, where 31 percent of housing units

reached 14 percent in 2010, higher than

stood empty (a slight decline from 34 percent

the average U.S. rate of 11 percent. The

in 2000). The lowest vacancy rates occurred

vacancy rate for surrounding counties was

in South Central tribal areas: 9.3 percent,

in between, at 13 percent. The vacancy

which was lower than the national average.

rate in tribal areas went up a very small

0.4 percentage points from 2000 to 2010,

South Central was one of four regions where

but the surrounding counties and the U.S.

vacancies decreased during the decade.

Exhibit 2.21 - Percent Change in Housing Units by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

Exhibit 2.21 - Percent Change in Housing Units by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

35

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

30

29.1

25

23.5

21.8

22.0

20

16.1

15.4

15

14.7

13.4

13.5

12.2

11.9

12.3

12.0

10

8.9

7.4

5

3.5

1.5

Percent change in housing units, 2000 to 2010

0

-0.7

-5

N. Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

S. Central

Plains

AZ/NM

CA/NV

Pacific NW

Alaska

Study region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

57

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Tribal areas in Arizona/New Mexico present

larger households, of poorer quality than

the most extreme case—the vacancy rate

other housing stock in the area, or far

dropped by 5.4 points to a still high 19

from employment centers. In fact, analysis

percent in 2010. This improvement went

later in this section indicates a shortage of

counter to the overall experience in this

affordable housing for the low-income AIAN

region, where the average vacancy rate rose

population in tribal areas. This finding is

by 2.2 percentage points.

consistent with an interim evaluation of the

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program

On the other hand, the vacancy rates rose

that found that 70 percent of the tribal areas

for tribal areas in the North Central region

in their study reported vacancy rates of less

(up nearly 2 points to 24 percent). That

than 5 percent for IHBG housing (Van Otten

region also saw the highest overall increase

et al., 2009). The interviews of local housing

in vacancy rates, up by 3.4 points to 13,

officials and community leaders conducted

according to U.S. census data.

as part of this study reported housing

shortages due to budget constraints,

A high vacancy rate in a given area does

inadequate infrastructure, planning and

not preclude a shortage of housing existing

permitting delays, and lack of developable

for particular groups in that area. The

land. Understanding the dynamics of tribal

units that are vacant might not be useable

housing markets may inform plans on

by low-income AIAN families for cost,

how to address AIAN housing problems

structural, or locational reasons. The vacant

discussed later in the section.

units may be too expensive, too small for

Exhibit 2.22 - Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010

Exhibit 2.22 - Vacancy Rates by Area Type, 2000 to 2010

16

2000

2010

14

14

14

13

12

11

11

10

9.0

8

6

4

Percent of housing units that are vacant

2

0

Total

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Area type

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

58

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.23 - Housing Market Indicators by Area Type and Study Region, 2000 to 2010

United

North

Okla-

South

Arizona

Calif.-

Pacific

States

Central

Eastern

homa

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Percent Change in Housing Units, 2000 to 2010

Tribal Areas

8.1

7.4

3.5

8.9

1.5

1 .9

-0.7

12.3

14.7

23.5

Surrounding

17.8

12.2

13.4

13.5

15.4

21.8

29.1

22.0

16.1

12.0

Counties

Vacancy Rates, 2010

Tribal Areas

14.4

24.1

10.4

13.3

9.3

19.9

18.6

31.3

16.6

21.8

Surrounding

13.0

17.4

13.9

9.4

9.6

12.2

15.4

1 .1

9.2

12.6

Counties

Percentage Point Change in Vacancy Rates, 2000 to 2010

Tribal Areas

0.4

1.9

-0.7

1.2

-1.8

2.0

-5.4

-2.5

2.7

1.0

Surrounding

2.5

2.8

2.9

0.4

-0.8

1.2

2.9

2.6

1.8

0.1

Counties

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

Tenure (Renter versus Homeowner

in the Arizona/New Mexico region (exhibit

2.24). Tribal area homeownership rates

Occupancy)

declined notably during the decade in the

As of 2010 more than 509,000 AIAN

North Central, Eastern, South Central, Pacific

households owned their homes nationwide.

Northwest, and Alaska regions while remaining

This number increased significantly

steady or increasing slightly in other regions.

from 2000 to 2010, up by 16 percent

As discussed in the Kingsley et al. (1996)

compared with an 8 percent increase for

report, the lower homeownership rate

non-AIAN households. The national AIAN

is due to many barriers experienced by

homeownership rate of 54 percent, however,

AIANs. These barriers include economic and

is still considerably lower than the non-AIAN

geographic isolation; legal issues stemming

rate of 65 percent.

from limited rights over land; reluctance of

AIAN homeownership rates in tribal areas are

private lenders to engage a tenuous market;

quite high—67 percent in 2010.29 The tribal

and low incomes, poor credit histories, and

area rate dropped by about 1 percentage

lack of financial literacy among potential

point from 2000 to 2012, similar to the overal

homebuyers, among other barriers (Kolluri

change for the nation. Although the AIAN

and Rengert, 2000; Listokin, Leichenko, and

homeownership rate decreased in the United

King, 2006; Todd and Burlon, 2009).

States as a whole, rates actual y increased

The causes of a lower homeownership

in some regions. AIAN homeownership

rate vary greatly by region and area

rates in tribal areas ranged from 54 percent

type. For example, research found that

in the Plains region in 2010 to 77 percent

29  The U.S. Census Bureau defines a unit as being owner occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. This definition includes HUD Mutual Help homes, because a family’s monthly payments are credited to an equity account that is used to purchase the home.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

59

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.24 - Tenure, AIAN-Alone Households in Tribal Areas, 2000-2010

North

South

Arizona-

California-

Pacific

US Total

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

New Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Households (thousands)

2000

Renter

81.2

4.9

7.7

25.2

1.4

14.8

16.3

2.3

4.0

4.7

Homeowner

177.9

6.9

23.6

50.3

4.0

16.7

52.7

5.4

7.5

10.8

Total

259.1

11.8

31.3

75.5

5.5

31.5

69.0

7.6

11.5

15.5

2010

Renter

95.8

6.1

10.5

30.3

1.3

16.1

17.3

2.7

4.8

6.8

Homeowner

198.1

7.7

25.7

59.9

3.1

18.6

56.9

6.3

7.8

12.1

Total

293.9

13.8

36.2

90.2

4.4

34.7

74.2

8.9

12.6

18.9

Percent  Homeowner

2000

68.7

58.5

75.5

66.6

74.0

53.1

76.3

70.3

65.4

69.7

2010

67.4

55.9

70.9

66.4

71.0

53.6

76.7

70.2

61.9

64.0

2000-2010 Pct. Change

Renter

18.0

24.5

37.6

20.4

(10.4)

8.8

5.7

17.6

21.0

44.9

Homeowner

11.4

12.1

8.8

19.2

(23.0)

11.0

8.1

17.1

3.9

12.3

Total

13.5

17.2

15.8

19.6

(19.7)

10.0

7.5

17.2

9.8

22.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census 2000 and 2010.

in the Ninth Federal Reserve District, the

households did so. This rate has risen by 2.6

low ownership rate for American Indian

percent for AIAN and 1.8 percent for non-

households is explained only in part by

AIAN households since 2000.

low incomes. Even when controlling for

The gap nationwide between AIAN and

income and housing quality, gaps in the

non-AIAN likelihood of living in single-family

homeownership rates remain between

detached homes is relatively smal , but

reservations in this district and those in

the overall values mask major geographic

other areas, and between large and small

differences. In tribal areas, nearly three-

reservations (Todd and Burlon, 2009).30

fourths of AIAN-alone households live in

Structure Type

single-family detached homes (exhibit

2.25). In the surrounding counties and

Across the area types and racial groups,

other metropolitan areas, a little more than

more households reside in single-family,

one-half of the AIAN households live in

detached homes than other types of housing,

single-family detached homes. The greatest

and this rate has grown during the past

difference is between AIAN households

decade. (See text box, Housing Structures.)

and non-AIAN households in surrounding

About 63 percent of all U.S. households lived

counties, where the AIAN rate is about 12

in detached homes during the 2006-to-

percentage points below the non-AIAN rate.

2010 period, and about 60 percent of AIAN

30  See section 2.5 for a discussion of factors affecting homeownership.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

60

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Another striking difference in housing type

Mobile homes are often the cheapest form

between AIAN and non-AIAN households

of housing and are easiest to acquire in

is in the shares that live in “other types of

rural areas due to the limited availability

housing,” which includes mobile homes

of traditional housing contractors and

and recreational vehicles (RVs). During the

developers (George et al., 2002). Further,

2006-to-2010 period, 13 percent of AIAN

the regulatory environment in tribal areas

households resided in these types of homes,

is general y not conducive to private land

twice the rate of non-AIAN households.

ownership; most land is held in trust by the

Across area types, the share of AIANs

U.S. government, so financing for housing

living in mobile homes or other housing

construction is chal enging. Nonpermanent

was highest in tribal areas (17 percent)

housing structures offer a solution to this

and other nonmetropolitan counties

common problem. Although such housing

(18 percent). The shares in surrounding

might provide the population with needed

counties and other metropolitan areas were

low-cost shelter, these homes are less

lower at 13 and 8 percent, respectively. The

valuable as an asset than more permanently

rates of AIAN households living in these

built homes and more vulnerable to

other structure types are higher than those

environmental elements (Cooper, 2011).

for non-AIAN households in all area types,

but the largest difference of 6.3 points is in

Other Indicators

the surrounding counties.

As mentioned previously, the Census Bureau

does not provide full ACS estimates for

AIAN households residing in mobile homes

standard geographies used for the remaining

or RVs have decreased by 1.6 percentage

indicators reviewed in this subsection (age

points overall and in all area types since

of structure and unit size; home values and

2000. The biggest decrease was seen in

rents). This study accordingly reports data

nonmetropolitan areas, where the percent

on these indicators from the 2006–2010 ACS

residing in other types of housing dropped

selected population tables. In these tables,

from 23 in 2000 to 18 in the 2006-to-2010

the data for the AIAN-alone population

period. The rates in the remaining area types

are provided only for the tribal areas and

each dropped between 1 and 2 points.

counties that have a population of at least

Housing Structures

mobile home: A movable dwel ing, 8 feet or more wide and 40 feet or more long, designed to be towed on its own chassis, with transportation gear integral to the unit when it leaves the factory and without need of a permanent foundation.

single-family detached home: One housing unit not attached to other units that is intended for one family.

townhouse: A dwel ing that is one of several side-by-side housing units.

Multifamily housing: Residential buildings with units built one on top of another and those built side by side that do not have a ground-to-roof wall but may have common facilities

(that is, attic, basement, heating plant, plumbing, and so on.)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

61

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.25 - AIAN Alone Housing Structure Type by Area Type, 2006–10

Exhibit 2.25 - AIAN-Alone Housing Structure Type by Area Type, 2006–10

100

Mobile home/RV

7.8

12.8

13.2

Townhouse/multifamily

90

16.6

18.1

Single-family detached

80

9.9

26.8

37.7

19.1

70

35.0

60

50

40

73.6

62.8

30

60.5

54.4

51.8

20

10

Percent of AIAN-alone households that live in each housing structure type

0

Total

Tribal areas

Surrounding counties

Other metropolitan counties Other nonmetropolitan counties

Area type

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–10 Five-Year Estimates

50 AIAN-alone individuals. These areas are

Age of Structure and Unit Size

referred to as  larger tribal areas,  selected

In the 2006-to-2010 period, one-fourth of

AIAN counties, and  selected non-AIAN

all AIAN households lived in buildings built

counties, to distinguish these area types from

before 1960. The share is much lower for

those used in earlier analyses.

larger tribal areas (15 percent) and selected

The larger tribal areas account for 93 percent

AIAN counties (18 percent). In the selected

of AIAN-alone households in all tribal areas

non-AIAN counties, the rates of living in

in the 2006-to-2010 period. The selected

housing built before 1960 are very similar for

AIAN counties and non-AIAN counties

AIAN and all households—about one-third.

account for 95 and 64 percent, respectively,

For AIAN households, these rates do not

of the AIAN-alone households in all counties

vary much by tenure; 23 percent of AIAN

in their categories. Thus, the indicators from

owners live in homes built before 1960, and

this source capture the housing conditions

27 percent of renters do as wel .

for the vast majority of AIAN households,

With larger household sizes, as discussed

although they do not necessarily reflect the

in section 1.3, one might expect that AIAN

conditions in tribal areas and counties with

households would live in larger housing

smal er AIAN populations.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

62

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

units. About 57 percent of AIAN households

Relatively slower growth in home values

lived in units with three or more bedrooms

for AIAN households in the selected

in the 2006-to-2010 period, lower than the

AIAN counties led to the widening of the

62 percent for all households. About 74

gap relative to the average home value

percent of AIAN owners lived in the larger

for all households. After adjusting for

units, also lower than the rate for all owner

inflation, home values rose by 46 percent

households. AIAN renters were considerably

from 2000 to the 2006-to-2010 period

more likely to live in these larger units,

for all households in the selected AIAN

however, than were all renter households

counties, but rose only 29 percent for

(37 versus 29 percent).

AIAN homeowners in the same areas. The

growth rates in larger tribal areas and

Across area types, AIAN housing unit size

non-AIAN counties were similar for AIAN

does not vary much for owners but does vary

owners and all owners.

considerably for renters. Of AIAN renters in

larger tribal areas, 54 percent lived in units

AIAN renter households, on average, paid

with three or more bedrooms compared with

$700 in gross rent during the 2006-to-2010

41 percent in the selected AIAN counties

period. Like home values, these rents were

and 29 percent in other counties. This range

lower than for all U.S. renter households.

aligns with the general pattern of larger

AIAN gross rents, however, were about 80

families in tribal areas. It also reflects the

percent of those for all renters, a smaller

type of housing available in larger tribal areas

gap than was found for home values. Rents

because all households in these areas live in a

averaged a very low $440 in the larger

similar higher share of large units.

tribal areas, rising to $630 in selected AIAN

counties. AIAN households experienced

Home Values and Rents

a much smaller increase in rents than all

renters, with an increase of 5.6 percent

The average home value for AIAN

compared with 42 percent for all renters,

homeowners in the 2006-to-2010 period

after controlling for inflation.

was $175,000—about 66 percent of the

average for all U.S. households. The gap has

2.3. Housing Problems and Needs

increased since 2000, when the average

value for AIAN owner-occupied homes was

This section presents findings related

69 percent of the average for all owner-

to the central questions that motivated

occupied homes.

this assessment: What are the housing

problems and needs of tribal area AIAN

The home values for AIAN homeowners

populations and how have they changed

in larger tribal areas and in selected AIAN

during the past two decades? It presents

counties overall were much lower than

answers to these questions based on the

the U.S. average, $112,000 and $152,000,

household survey (the only source that

respectively. Given that these values are

provides authoritative information on

from a period that includes the end of the

all dimensions of housing problems and

housing boom and its aftermath, values for

needs in Indian Country) and from Census

all area types were lower in regions that

Bureau sources. First, however, this

were hard hit by the crash, such as California

section offers a framework that defines

and other parts of the West.

the various attributes of housing that are

regarded as problems, and how they may

be looked at together.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

63

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Framework and Standards

of households that will live in the area

(taking into account vacancies and likely

Attributes of the Framework

future growth). Within an existing unit, this

attribute relates to the relationship between

The Urban Institute’s first report on AIAN

the number of people living in the unit and

housing (Kingsley et al., 1996) reviewed

the amount of space available, that is, the

the history of U.S. concern with housing

extent of  overcrowding.

conditions since the late 1800s and presented

a framework for understanding the

Price. Under this attribute, problems

measures that together define “inadequate”

exist when families are forced to pay a

housing. That framework was used in this

higher percent of their income for housing

project’s interim report (Pettit et al., 2014)

expenses than they can reasonably afford,

and is again adopted for this report. The

such that they do not have enough money

framework notes three defining attributes:

left over for adequate food, clothing, and

(1) quality, (2) quantity, and (3) price.

other necessities of life.

Quality. This attribute is most complex

Specific Standards Used in This Report

because it has three aspects, two of which

are difficult to define and measure reliably.

The actual rating of housing conditions in

an area requires defining specific standards

1.  Facilities problems: This aspect is the

related to each of the attributes previously

easiest to measure objectively. Problems

discussed. This study relies on wel -accepted

exist when a unit (1) lacks adequate

standards used by HUD in its recurrent

plumbing, kitchen, electrical and/or

“Worst-Case Housing Needs” reports to

heating facilities; or (2) such facilities

Congress (Hardiman et al., 2010; Steffen et

do not function properly; or (3) they

al., 2011, 2013). These standards relate to

constitute a safety hazard.

all elements of the framework presented

previously, except for “design problems,” for

2. Condition problems: These occur when

which, as noted, an objective rating scheme

the unit was built inadequately (or

has never been devised.

has since deteriorated) such that it is

structural y unsafe or offers inadequate

Data are presented on housing problems in

protection from the elements. These

tribal areas from two sources, representing

problems have been hard to rate in an

two points in time: (1) the household

objective manner.

survey, as of 2013–2015, which provides

data on all the problem categories noted

3. Design problems: These problems

previously except for “design problems”;

relate to the physical arrangement and

and (2) the 5-year ACS for 2006–2010,

characteristics of external features

which provides data covering the same

and interior spaces, whether they are

topics except for heating facilities, electrical

deemed to be attractive and functional y

facilities, and condition.

convenient. For several reasons—including

the fact that tastes vary—an objective

The household survey provides a detailed

rating scheme for this aspect has never

snapshot of conditions in all categories

been devised.

for the total of all tribal areas nationwide.

Because of sample size limitations (see

Quantity. At the market-wide level, this

appendix D), it cannot provide information

attribute relates to whether the number of

on individual tribal areas or even regional

housing units can accommodate the number

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

64

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

breakdowns, and it cannot present data for

Quality Standards. The specific inadequacies

different income groups or show change

in this group that are enumerated in the

over time. That is why the ACS data are

household survey are as follows:

needed. They allow for presentation of such

•  Plumbing problem: Lacking piped hot

comparisons that are comparable with data

water or a flush toilet, or lacking both

provided in the earlier report (Kingsley et

bathtub and shower for the exclusive use

al., 1996), even though they do not have

of the unit.

information on heating facilities, electrical

facilities, or condition.

•   Kitchen problem: Lacking a sink, range, or

refrigerator for the exclusive use of the unit.

This section also compares household

survey results with measures provided in

•   Heating problem:  Having been

the American Housing Survey (AHS) as of

uncomfortably cold during the past winter

2013 for the nation as a whole. The relevant

for 24 hours or more, or three times for

definitions in the AHS are comparable

6 hours each, because of broken down

with those in the household survey, but

heating equipment.

again, survey sample sizes are small and

no information can be provided for small

•   Electrical problem: Having no electricity or

geographies like tribal areas, even in

having all of the following three electrical

the aggregate. Although each individual

problems—(1) exposed wiring, (2) a room

measure used here is defined consistently

with no working wall outlet, and (3) three

with those in the “Worst Case Needs”

or more blown fuses or tripped circuit

reports based on the AHS, the measures

breakers in the past 90 days.

are combined here in a somewhat different

•   Condition problem: Having any five of

way to be consistent with categories used

the following six maintenance problems:

in Kingsley et al. (1996), as explained in the

(1) leaks from outdoors, (2) holes in the

following sections.

House on the Navajo Reservation. Image courtesy Elizabeth Rudd, Program Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

65

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

floor, (3) holes or open cracks in the wal s

Quantity Standards. In the HUD standard,

or ceiling, (4) more than 1 square foot of

and in U.S. Census Bureau reports, a housing

peeling paint or plaster, (5) rats in the past

unit is defined as being overcrowded if it

90 days, or (6) leaks from inside (such as

houses more than one person per room. The

broken pipes or water heaters, backed up

denominator of total rooms include living

plumbing, or water from another unit).

rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bedrooms,

finished recreation rooms, enclosed porches

In the Worst Case Needs reports, a unit

suitable for year-round use, and lodger’s

is considered to have “severe physical

rooms. The Worst Case Needs framework

inadequacies” if it has any one of the

considers overcrowding to be a “moderate”

following problems as defined previously:

problem, but this problem general y is

plumbing, heating, electrical, or condition

regarded as severe in Indian Country policy

problems. This report adds in kitchen

circles, so it is treated as such in this report.

problems (which HUD considers to be a

“moderate” rather than a “severe” problem) to

Price Standards (Cost Burden). In the HUD

be consistent with the framework employed

standards, a household is deemed to pay

in Kingsley et al. (1996). Again, of this group,

an excessive amount for housing (have an

the decennial census and the ACS provide

excessive “housing cost burden”) if its outlays

data only on plumbing and kitchen problems.

for housing exceed 30 percent of its income.

At the end of this section, this study provides

Housing Problems and Needs—

an estimate of the total number of “severely

Survey Results

inadequate” housing units in tribal areas at

the time of the household survey. For this

Exhibit 2.31 shows the results of the

study, severely inadequate units are defined

household survey for each housing problem

based on the previously discussed categories

independently. It shows what percent of

to include (1) all units having a condition

all AIAN households in Indian Country

problem and (2) all other units having three

(household head or spouse identify as

of the four possible systems deficiencies

AIAN-alone or multirace in the 2013-15

(plumbing, kitchen, heating, and electrical).

survey) have that problem compared with al

Exhibit 2.31 - Individual Housing Problems in Tribal Areas

INDIVIDUAL HOUSING PROBLEMS % with problem

AIAN in Tribal Areas 2013-15 Household Survey

Total US (AHS-2013)

Percent

Confid. Interval

FACILITIES PROBLEM

Plumbing

5.6

± 4

1.3

Kitchen

6.6

±  3

1.7

Electrical

1.1

±  1

1.4

Heating

12.0

±  3

0.1

CONDITION PROBLEM

8.1

±  3

0.8

OVERCROWDED

15.9

±  6

2.2

COST BURDEN

37.5

±  5

36.1

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015. American Housing Survey, 2013.

Notes: Estimates are weighted to be nationally representative of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. The confidence interval is computed at the 95% level.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

66

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

households in the United States (2013 AHS).

This way of looking at the data is valuable

The contrasts for all but one of the physical

but, because individual households can be

problems are dramatic. For plumbing

affected by several of these problems at

deficiencies, the incidences are 5.6 percent

once, it does not provide a number that is

for AIAN tribal area households versus a 1.3

more important for policy considerations:

percent U.S. average. The comparisons are

the total number of households affected

6.6 to 1.7 percent for kitchen deficiencies,

by one or more of these housing problems.

12.0 to 0.1 percent for heating, 8.1 to 0.8

From this perspective, adding up the

percent for condition, and 15.9 to 2.2

numbers on exhibit 2.31 would entail

percent for overcrowding. The exception

double counting. Numbers that avoid that

was electrical deficiencies—1.1 to 1.4 percent.

are provided in exhibit 2.32, which shows

Physical housing problems clearly have

mutually exclusive categories.

been all but eliminated for U.S. households

It shows that 10.2 percent of AIAN tribal

nationwide, but that is certainly not true

area households had plumbing and/or

for AIAN populations in tribal areas, where

kitchen deficiencies; another 13.0 percent

problems remain widespread.

that did not have plumbing/kitchen

Cost burden, or affordability, is the housing

deficiencies had some mix of heating,

problem whose rapid growth has been

electrical, and/or condition problems; and

well publicized in most of the United States

another 10.8 percent that did not have

since 2000. The incidence of cost burden

any of the previously discussed problems

is similar between AIAN and all households;

were overcrowded. Altogether, then, 34.0

37.5 percent of AIAN households in tribal

percent had one or more physical problems

areas had a cost burden problem versus 36.1

(compared with only 7.0 percent for U.S.

percent for all U.S. households.

households, on average).

Exhibit 2.32 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas

AIAN in Tribal Areas

HOUSING PROBLEMS COMBINED % with problem

2013-15 Household Survey

Total US

Percent

Confid. Interval

(AHS-2013)

FACILITIES/CONDITION PROBLEMS

Plumbing/Kitchen

10.2

± 4

3.0

Other Heating/Electrical/Cond.

13.0

±4

2.0

Subtotal

23.0

± 8

5.0

OTHER OVERCROWDED

10.8

±2

2.0

SUBTOTAL - PHYSICAL PROBLEMS

34.0

± 9

7.0

COST BURDEN ONLY

22.7

± 6

33.0

TOTAL WITH ANY PROBLEM

56.7

± 5

40.0

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Note: mutually exclusive categories - individual households are counted only once

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

67

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Final y for another 22.7 percent of AIAN

These special tabulations differ from the files

tribal area households, cost burden was

used earlier in this report in two ways: (1) they

their only housing problem (compared with

provide data only for tribal areas; and (2) they

a U.S. average of 32.7 percent). In total, 56.7

define AIAN households with a householder

percent of AIAN tribal area households had

or spouse who identifies as AIAN, either alone

one or more identified housing problems of

or multiracial.

any kind (compared with 40.0 percent for

Exhibit 2.33 presents the results at the national

the United States overal ). These are national

level. The main findings are total number of

estimates based on the household survey.

AIAN households in tribal areas (AIAN-alone

Information on representativeness of the

plus AIAN multiracial) grew from 234,400 in

household survey sample is provided in the

1990 to the 370,900 reported in the 2006–

text box, Is the Sample of Tribes Selected for

2010 ACS; an increase of 58 percent. Changes

the Household Survey Representative of All

in the housing indicators during this period

Tribes Nationwide?

were even more noteworthy.

Housing Problems as Reported by

•   These data confirm that the physical

the U.S. Census/ACS

housing problems in AIAN tribal areas

As noted, although the decennial census and

are still much more severe than those

the ACS lack data on some important housing

faced by U.S. households, on average.

According to these Census Bureau

problems (heating facilities, electricity, and

sources, the share that had either

physical condition), they have benefits not

plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and/or

shared by the more complete housing survey

were overcrowded reached a level of 13

results just reviewed; that is, they can show

percent in the 2006-to-2010 period. The

regional variations and changes over time and

2006–2010 ACS indicates that the U.S

break out results for low-income households.

average share with these problems (4

This section relies on special tabulations of

percent) was less than one-third the AIAN

the 2006–2010 ACS provided by the U.S.

tribal area share (13 percent).

Census Bureau to HUD for formula analysis.

Is the Sample of Tribes Selected for the Household Survey Representative

of All Tribes Nationwide?

A comparison of the rates of housing problems in sampled tribal areas and nonsampled

tribal areas was performed to check the representativeness of the survey sample. The

comparison used measures of housing problems (overcrowded households or households

lacking complete kitchen facilities or plumbing, and households with a severe cost burden)

and economic distress (number of households with incomes that are less than 30 percent of

Area Median Income [AMI], 30 to 50 percent of AMI, and 50 to 80 percent of AMI) reported

in the American Community Survey, covering the years from 2010 to 2013. This analysis

found that the measures for the two groups are very close, with no significant differences

between the sampled and nonsampled tribal areas, showing that the survey sample frame

is representative of all tribes nationwide (although the circumstances of any given tribal area can differ from the national estimate). The sampled tribal areas encompassed 60 percent of

the AIAN population of al  tribal areas.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

68

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.33 - Housing Problem Summary, Census/ACS Data

AIAN households in Tribal Areas

Census 1990

ACS 2006-10

Total U.S. all races ACS 2006-10

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Number of households (000)

234.4

370.9

113,794

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen Deficiency

14

6

1

Other Overcrowded

14

8

3

Subtotal

28

13

4

Cost Burden Only

17

21

33

Total One or More Problems

44

34

37

Total No Housing Problems

56

66

63

Total

100

100

100

LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS (<80 % of median income)

Number of households (000)

144.9

193.4

46,213

Low income as % of total

62

52

41

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen Deficiency

19

8

2

Other Overcrowded

15

9

5

Subtotal

34

18

7

Cost Burden Only

25

36

60

Total One or More Problems

59

55

67

Total No Housing Problems

41

45

33

Total

100

100

100

Source: HUD Special Tabulations of Census and ACS data (1990 data as reported in Kingsley et al, 1996) Note: AIAN households = those where householder or spouse identifies as AIAN. In 1990, AIAN included those who identified AIAN as their only race. In 2006-10, this category included AIAN-Alone plus AIAN multiracial.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

69

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

•  By contrast, according to ACS data, the

income groups in all categories. Their share

AIAN tribal area share with a housing

with the physical problems noted on exhibit

cost burden was less than the average

2.31 (plumbing/kitchen deficiencies and

for the United States in the 2006-to-

overcrowding) was 18 percent in the 2006-to-

2010 period.  The sizeable increases in

2010 period, much more than the 13 percent

housing affordability problems across

for all AIAN tribal area households. This level

the United States of late have been

was 2.6 times the 7 percent share with these

widely recognized. In 1990, 22 percent

problems among all low-income groups

of U.S. households had a cost burden-

nationwide. The gap remains significant.

only problem; that is, they did not have

The low-income share in the cost-burdened-

the physical problems noted previously,

only group went up to 36 percent during

but spent more than 30 percent of their

the 2006-to-2010 period. The latter figure is

income for housing expenses. By the

much worse than the 21 percent for all AIAN

2006-to-2010 period, that figure had

tribal area households, but much better than

gone up to 33 percent. Among AIAN

the 60 percent of low-income households

households in tribal areas, the cost-

that faced such problems nationwide.

burdened-only group reached 21 percent

in the 2006-to-2010 period.

Variation by Region

The AIAN tribal area share of households

Another noteworthy finding of this analysis is

with “one or more housing problems” (a

the enormous variation in the extent of AIAN

traditional marker for monitoring housing

tribal area housing problems by region during

problems) is now actual y lower than that for

the 2006-to-2010 period (exhibit 2.34). The

U.S. households overal : 33 versus 37 percent.

share of all AIAN households in tribal areas

This measure, however, is no longer a very

with the physical problems highlighted was

useful way to monitor overal  comparative

very close to the al -race national average

need because of the marked divergence in

in the Eastern and Oklahoma regions (6

trends between its two components: physical

and 4 percent respectively). The share was

problems versus cost burden problems.

in a higher, but intermediate, range (8 to

10 percent) in four regions (North Central,

Problems for Low-Income

South Central, California/Nevada, and Pacific

Households

Northwest). These housing problems are

How do these relationships differ for

concentrated in the remaining three regions:

AIAN tribal area households that have low

Plains (15 percent), Arizona/New Mexico (31

incomes (those with incomes that are less

percent), and Alaska (36 percent). These

than 80 percent of median in their areas,

three regions account for 44 percent of al

the target beneficiaries for NAHASDA

AIAN households in tribal areas, but they

funding)? During the 2006-to-2010

account for 73 percent of those households

period, 193,400 such households existed,

that had physical housing problems.

representing 52 percent of all AIAN tribal

The share of low-income AIAN households

area households (the low-income share had

in tribal areas with these problems also was

been a higher 62 percent in 1990).

dominant in these regions: 18 percent in the

The patterns regarding housing problems

Plains, 36 percent in Arizona/New Mexico,

are similar to those for all AIAN tribal area

and 44 percent in Alaska (compared with 8

households, but as would be expected, the

percent or less in the North Central, Eastern,

problems are much more prevalent for low-

and Oklahoma regions). The three regions

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

70

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.34 - Housing Problem Summary, AIAN Households in Tribal Areas, by Region (ACS 2006-10) United

North

Eastern

Okla-

South

Plains

Arizona

Calif.-

Pacific

Alaska

States

Central

homa

Central

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Number of households

(000)

370.9

15.8

38.9

160.8

5.8

33.8

69.5

8.7

13.7

23.8

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen

Deficiency

6

2

1

1

1

3

17

2

1

21

Other Overcrowded

8

6

5

3

9

13

14

6

8

15

Subtotal

13

8

6

4

10

15

31

8

9

36

Cost Burden Only

21

25

27

23

21

20

12

22

24

19

Total One or More

Problems

34

33

33

27

31

36

43

30

33

55

Total No Housing

Problems

66

67

67

73

69

64

57

70

67

45

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS (<80 % of median income)

Number of households

(000)

193.4

9.8

20.3

69.1

2.9

21.8

42.8

5.3

7.4

14.0

Low income as % of total

52

62

52

43

50

65

62

61

54

59

Percent

Physical Problems

Plumbing/Kitchen

Deficiency

8

2

1

2

1

4

22

2

2

29

Other Overcrowded

9

6

7

5

12

14

14

7

10

15

Subtotal

18

8

8

6

14

18

36

9

12

44

Cost Burden Only

36

38

46

46

38

30

19

33

40

26

Total One or More

Problems

55

48

57

54

52

50

58

43

53

70

Total No Housing

Problems

45

52

43

46

48

50

42

57

47

30

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Source: U.S. Census 2006-2010

Note: AIAN households are those where householder or spouse identifies as AIAN-Alone or AIAN multiracial HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

71

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

House with horse trailer on the Navajo Reservation. Image courtesy Elizabeth Rudd, Program

Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD

1937 Act house on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation designated for rehabilitation using Indian Community Development Block Grant funds for mold remediation.

Image courtesy Kevin Turnau, Northern Plains Office of Native American Programs, HUD.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

72

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

with the most serious problems were also

to draw precise conclusions about the

among those where low-income households

extent of the change. Other reasons cause

dominated the total population in the area: 65

concern about comparisons with the 1990

percent in the Plains, 62 percent in Arizona/

census figure: tribal area boundaries have

New Mexico, and 59 percent in Alaska.

changed, and technical differences exist

between the 1990 census and the 2006–

Less variation was evident in the share in which

2010 ACS. This report accordingly does not

cost burden was the only housing problem

offer a firm answer to questions about the

and, consistent with the findings in section

nature and extent of the change in housing

1.5, places with the most prevalent physical

problems since 1990.

problems often had the lowest cost burden

problems. The cost-burdened-only shares

Overcrowding and Physical

among all AIAN households in tribal areas

Deficiencies

were 12 percent in Arizona/New Mexico, 19

percent in Alaska, and 20 percent in the Plains.

This project’s household survey shows

They were highest in the Eastern (27 percent)

that as of 2013-15, the overcrowding

and North Central (25 percent) regions.

and physical housing problems of AIAN

populations living on reservations and other

Change in Tribal Area Housing

tribal areas remain strikingly more severe

Problems Over Time

than those of other Americans.

The authors of this report think the data

How many additional units of good quality

available for this study do not allow a

housing would be needed to eliminate

definitive conclusion as to whether housing

overcrowding and replace severely

conditions in Indian Country have improved

inadequate housing in Indian Country?

since 1990. Kingsley et al. (1996) used

The answer could vary depending on

special tabulations of the 1990 census data

assumptions about standards and other

to present an overall figure for the percent

factors, and any such assumptions are

of AIAN households in tribal areas with

always open to question and alternative

physical problems defined as in exhibit 2.33

formulations. These assumptions, however,

(the share that had either plumbing/kitchen

lead to at least a plausible set of estimates

deficiencies and/or were overcrowded). This

providing a rough answer to the question.

figure was 28 percent, substantial y more

than the 13 percent figure for the 2006-to-

The first step in this process was to estimate

2010 period derived from ACS data. This

the total number of AIAN households

study’s 2013-15 household survey, however,

residing in tribal areas at the time of the

yields a point estimate of 24 percent (instead

household survey, 2013-2015 (mid-point

of 13 percent) in the comparably defined

= 2014). This was accomplished using a

category (with a confidence interval of plus/

straight-line method. Between the mid-point

minus 7.8 percentage points). It could wel

of the 2006-to-2010 period and 2010, total

be that after declining from 1990 through

AIAN households in Indian Country grew

the 2006-to-2010 period (the period just

by 4,750 per year.31 Extending that annual

before the national housing market collapse)

increment through 2014 (the mid-point of the

this problem indicator went up again to the

survey period) yields an estimate of 399,400

higher level by 2013-15 (after the collapse),

total households in 2014 (exhibit 2.35).

but given the margins of error, it is difficult

31  The project team compiled totals for 2006–2010 (ACS) and 2010 (census) for tribal areas consistent with methods used throughout this report and described in appendix A.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

73

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

The next step was to divide this total into four

in tribal areas were overcrowded in the

policy-relevant groups using percentages

2013-to-2015 period. This amounts to

derived from household survey data.

64,000 households out of the 399,400

households that were estimated to be

1.  Severely inadequate housing, but not

residing in Indian Country at the time. In

overcrowded.

exhibit 2.35, this total is broken down into

two subgroups: (1) 53,000 households

2. Overcrowded and but not severely

for which units were overcrowded but

inadequate.

not severely inadequate and (2) 11,000

3. Overcrowded and severely inadequate.

households for which units were both

overcrowded and severely inadequate.

4. Other.

Regarding the first group, no need exists to

Severely inadequate housing includes

replace all these units, because they do not

all occupied units that have condition

have major condition problems. The need is

deficiencies, plus all other units that have

to add only enough additional units to enable

three out of the four possible systems

the residents to spread out and eliminate

deficiencies, consistent with definitions

overcrowding in this group; however, it is

earlier in this section. Survey data show that

very difficult to estimate the number of

such units that were not also overcrowded

additional units required without more data

account for 6 percent of the total, or 24,000

on the mix of household types and sizes

units. All these need to be replaced.

in this group than the survey sample wil

support. Some of these households now

In these calculations, it is assumed

contain two or more separate family units

that a unit is overcrowded when it is

living together and would prefer enough new

housing more than one person per room

units to enable each separate family to have

(consistent with the HUD standards noted

its own unit. For others, however, the current

previously). Survey results show that

households may be one extended family

16 percent of all AIAN occupied units

Housing in a New Mexico Pueblo.

Image courtesy Roberta Youmans, Office of Native American Programs, HUD.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

74

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

that wants to continue to live together. In

shares for the two overcrowded categories:

this case the need is for one larger unit, not

43.1 and 42.4 percent respectively. It is

separate units.

reasonable to assume that new separate

units should be provided in these cases. The

The survey provides data on households in

estimate presented assumes that, overal ,

each category that say they are sheltering

expanding the number of units in these two

some people only because they have no

categories by 50 percent would be enough

other place to go (the “near homeless”

to add these new units and provide for other

as will be discussed in section 2.4). These

size related adjustments to the stock. To

account for an average of 16.6 percent of

eliminate overcrowding in the first group, then

all households in tribal areas, but very high

(overcrowded but not severely inadequate),

Exhibit 2.35 - Needs to Address Overcrowding and Physical Deficiencies

Overcrowded not

Overcrowded severely

Severely inadequate not

Total

severely inadequate

inadequate

overcrowded

Other

NEW UNITS NEEDED

Percent of households

100

13

3

6

78

No. of households (000)

399

53

11

24

312

To eliminate

overcrowding

No. of rooms/unit

5

4

4

5

6

No. of persons/unit

4

7

7

3

3

No. additional rooms

144

114

29

na

na

needed (000)

No. additional units

33

27

6

na

na

needed (000)

To replace severely

inadequate

No. additional units

35

na

11

24

na

needed (000)

Total new units needed

68

27

17

24

na

(000)

POSSIBLE REHABS

(not in the above)

Condition moderate

23

4

na

na

19

Other w/ 1 or more

7

2

na

na

5

facil. probs.

Total

30

6

na

na

24

Source: Authors calculations based on Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

75

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

this yields an estimate of 27,000 additional

a considerably larger figure for total need.

units needed (50 percent of 53,000 units).

For example, NAHASDA is designed to allow

tribes to provide housing services to “Indian

For the second group (overcrowded and

Areas” (a tribal area plus normal y adjacent

severely inadequate), first the need exists

lands in which tribal members reside and

to replace all these units because of their

where additional housing needs may be

physical condition—a need for 11,000 new

substantial). The total need in all Indian Areas

units. Then additional units are needed

nationwide could be a considerably larger

to prevent the new units from being

figure than the one presented previously.

overcrowded. Again, using the 50-percent

Also, when calculating housing needs, it

assumption, 50 percent of 11,000 units

makes sense for tribes to estimate needs

equals about 6,000 additional units.

for the future (for example, 5- to 10 years

into the future when the local Indian Area

The estimated total new units needed,

population may have grown substantial y).32

therefore, includes (1) 24,000 to replace

units in the severely inadequate but not

The authors of this study do not have any

overcrowded group; (2) 11,000 to replace

factual basis for making such broader

units in the severely inadequate and

estimates, a necessary limitation to a

overcrowded group; (3) 27,000 to eliminate

national study. The approach and data

overcrowding in the overcrowded-only group;

offered previously (for tribal areas and 2014

and (4) 6,000 to eliminate overcrowding in

only), however, should provide information

the overcrowded and severely inadequate

and guidance to tribes in making their

group. This adds to a total need of 68,000

estimates. This approach ideal y can

additional units to both replace severely

contribute to developing a widely accepted

inadequate units and eliminate overcrowding

methodology and objective criteria for

in tribal areas as of 2013-15.

determining housing shortage that can be

implemented at the tribal level.

The bottom panel on the table uses survey

data to estimate the number of other

2.4. Housing Composition,

units that are appropriate candidates for

Overcrowding, and Homelessness

rehabilitation. It assumes that these should

include units with moderate condition

In the United States, the prevalence of

problems and others with 1 or more

homelessness is driven by problems of

facilities problems. This works out to a

poverty and lack of affordable housing.

total of an additional 30,000 units needing

Research shows that the single biggest

rehabilitation—7,000 in the formerly

individual-level predictor of homelessness

overcrowded housing stock and 23,000

is being extremely low income (Burt, 2001),

in the stock that had no other physical

and the key systemic driver of homelessness

housing problems.

is the availability of affordable housing, or

lack thereof (Cunningham, 2009). American

It is important to remember that the

Indians and Alaska Natives face these issues

previously discussed estimates relate only

at higher rates than non-AIAN households

to census-based population for recognized

(Pettit et al., 2014). In the face of these

tribal areas, and only as of 2014. Related

pressures, literal homelessness (that is,

estimates could be made that would yield

32  Several individual tribes have made their own estimates of housing needs based on tribal or regional surveys. The larger sample sizes and/

or more detailed information obtained about housing conditions that can be collected in such studies may support different assumptions about the percent of units that need to be replaced or that are needed to alleviate overcrowding. For example, Navajo Nation’s housing needs assessment (RPI Consulting, The Jones Payne Group, Native Home Capital, and Alternative Marketing Solutions, 2011) estimated that 34,100 units were needed to replace housing due to poor condition and to increase capacity to alleviate overcrowding.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

76

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

living on the street, in emergency shelter, or

households in tribal areas (59 percent)

someplace not meant for human habitation,

include the respondent’s spouse, and 57

according to the HUD definition) and taking

percent include the respondent’s child. About

in family and friends who would otherwise be

14 percent of AIAN households include the

homeless (doubling up or near homelessness)

household head’s grandchild, and 7 percent

are almost universal. Nearly all (99.8 percent)

include a sibling and 5 percent include a

of tribal/TDHE respondents said that

parent. On rare occasions, households include

households double up. Despite doubling up,

the head’s aunts and uncles (0.6 percent of

most tribes/TDHEs (88 percent) noted that

households) and grandparents (0.5 percent).

literal homelessness still occurs. To better

Further, about 8 percent of households

understand the full extent of homelessness

include a household member related to the

in Indian Country, which includes both literal

household head in some other way.

homelessness and doubling up, this section

These members form households in a

examines tribal household composition and

diverse array of living arrangements. To

the relationship between overcrowding and

better understand these arrangements, this

homelessness in Indian Country in addition

section of the study uses more nuanced

to the extent of literal homelessness in tribal

household type definitions than the U.S.

areas, availability of homeless services, and

Census Bureau definitions used in section 1

prevalence of homeless risk factors. It also

of this report (see the text box, Definition of

estimates the size of the population that

Survey Household Composition Types, for

would be homeless if people were not taken

definitions of the types of households used

in by another household.

in this section).

Household Composition

Most households in Indian Country form

Although living in larger households can

either core families or extended households;

be a way to cope with housing affordability

single-person households and nonfamily

challenges or prevent homelessness,

households are relatively rare (exhibit 2.41).

AIAN households may also choose larger

About 45 percent of households are core

households or extended family living

households and another 39 percent are in an

arrangements (that is, households that

extended household. In contrast, 13 percent

include members beyond the household

are single-person households, and 3 percent

head, spouse, and children) because

are nonfamily households.

they are valued in their tribe’s culture

Of all core families, about 85 percent are

or because the household prefers the

headed by a married couple, and more

arrangement for other reasons. To parse

than one-half of those households include

this complex issue, it is important to first

children (exhibit 2.42). The remaining 15

examine household composition trends

percent of core family households consist of

using data from the household survey

single parents with children. Most of these

conducted for this study.

households (75 percent) are headed by a

The household survey shows that, although

female, and 25 percent are headed by a male.

AIAN households most commonly include

About two-thirds (67 percent) of extended

members of the core family (for example,

households are broader extended family

spouse and children), AIAN households

households (exhibit 2.43). Of these, more

also include other members, particularly

than one-half (56 percent) include children.

grandchildren, with some regularity. Most

Three-generation family households

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

77

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Definition of Survey Household Composition Types

•   core families:  households with or without children when the only adult(s) in the household is the respondent or the respondent and his/her spouse. These families include married

couples with or without children and also single-parent household types.

•   extended households: households that include related family members beyond the core family structure and may or may not include a core family. This category includes the

following subtypes:

o   three-generation families: households that include three generations of the same family (that is, grandparent, his/her child, and his/her grandchild) with no other family

members. This differs slightly from the Census Bureau definition of multigenerational

households, which cannot include other household members and can include more than

three parent-child generations.

o   broader extended families: households that include related household members

beyond the core family or three-generation household members (for example, the

respondent’s siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews) but no nonrelated household

members

o   extended households with relatives and nonrelatives: households that include both related and nonrelated household members.

•  single-person households: households in which the respondent is the only household member.

•  nonfamily households: households in which the respondent lives with at least one nonrelative and does not live with any relatives or a spouse.

comprise a smaller, but still substantial, share

are somewhat smaller, including only

(22 percent). Extended households with

3.2 persons, on average, while extended

relatives and nonrelatives are rare, making up

households include 4.7 persons, on average.

only 11 percent of extended households, most

These estimates are pulled up by some

of which (75 percent) include children. Across

exceptionally large households. Using the

the entire extended households group, the

median, however, the same trend persists.

majority (68 percent) includes children.

Overall, the median tribal area household

includes 2.7 persons. The median core

Household Size

household is smaller (2.3 persons), and the

median extended household is larger (3.9

AIAN households tend to be larger than

persons). Further, extended households have

households in the United States overall

much larger shares of very large households

(Pettit et al., 2014), and this study finds that,

than do core families: 16.1 percent of

within tribal areas, extended households

extended households include more than 6

tend to be larger than core households.

persons, which is more than six times the

Overall, AIAN households include an

2.5 percent rate for core households.

average of 3.6 persons. Core households

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

78

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.41 - Tribal Area Households by Type

Exhibit 2.41 - Tribal Area Households by Type

45

40

35

30

25

20

Percent of households

15

10

5

0

Core families

Extended

Single-person

Non family

Household Type

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

The Relationship Between

than literal homelessness: only 11 percent of the

homeless people they surveyed were literal y

Overcrowding and Homelessness

homeless, and the remaining 89 percent were

In Indian Country, literal homelessness

doubled up. Because these people would

and, to some extent, overcrowding are

have been homeless if they were not able to

two components of the same problem: an

stay with friends or family members, a true

insufficient stock of affordable housing.

measure of the extent of homelessness on

Because households take in friends and

tribal areas must include them in addition to

family who cannot afford their own housing

those who are literal y homeless.

or for whom no housing is available, staying

The tribal/TDHE survey and site visit

with others, or doubling up, often prevents

interviews confirm the widespread use of

literal homelessness (that is, sleeping outside,

doubling up or overcrowding as a strategy

in an emergency shelter, or in some place

to prevent literal homelessness. Nearly

not meant for human habitation) on tribal

all tribes/TDHEs (99.8 percent) reported

lands. In its study of homelessness among

that doubling up occurs in their service

six Minnesota tribes, Wilder Research (2014)

areas, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent)

defined homelessness as being without

said it was a major problem. The site

housing of one’s own and describes doubling

visit respondents reinforced this point.

up as “near homelessness.” The study found

Respondents in 17 of the 22 sites visited

that near homelessness was far more common

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

79

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.42 - Core Family Households by Type

Exhibit 2.42 - Core Family Households by Type

50

45

40

35

30

25

45.9

20

38.9

Percent of core households

15

3.6

10

5

11.1

0

Married, with children

Married, without children

Single parent

Total

Female head, with children

Male head, with children

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

said that homelessness primarily takes the

Other site visit respondents seemed to

form of doubling up or overcrowding. When

have literal homelessness in mind as their

asked about homelessness, some site visit

definition of homelessness. They said that

respondents included doubling up in their

they did not have much homelessness,

definitions of the problem. One respondent

but they noted the bigger problem was

from the Pine Ridge Reservation said—

overcrowding. For example, a Cherokee

respondent explained—

People go from one family member’s

home to another; everyone’s homeless

There is not a lot of homelessness.

around here—but, they just stay with

What we do experience is two, three,

family members and extended families

four families under one roof; Native

until they get kicked out—it’s not good—

American families take care of each

they are not living in the street, but it’s

other. They will not let a family member

still not good.

be homeless.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

80

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 2. .43 - Ex

43 - Ext tended Households b

ended Households by T y T

ype ype

80

70

60

With children

Without children

50

40

30

Percent of extended households

20

10

0

Broader extended family households

Three generation households

Extended households with relatives and non-relatives

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

As the Cherokee respondent’s comment

whole. Pettit et al. (2014) found, based

suggests, households in tribal areas take

on analysis of ACS data, that 11 percent

in families and additional households

of AIAN households in larger tribal areas

that would otherwise be homeless and

were overcrowded compared with only

experience overcrowding as a result. Site visit

3 percent of households nationwide. This

respondents in some sites explicitly stated

study’s household survey finds an even

that the lack of affordable housing was

higher rate of overcrowding among tribal

driving this need to double up. For example, a

area households. About 16 percent of AIAN

respondent from the Choctaw Nation said—

households were overcrowded, meaning

their household included more than 1 person

Overcrowding is a serious problem. To

per room, and about 6 percent were severely

avoid some members being homeless,

overcrowded (that is, more than 1.5 persons

it is not uncommon to have multiple

per room). As might be expected given

generations residing in a single

their larger household size, overcrowding

residence. There’s a huge unmet need

is particularly common among extended

for safe affordable housing.

households. About 28 percent of extended

households were overcrowded compared

Extent of Overcrowding and

with about 9 percent for core families.

Overlapping Cost Burden

Further, the standard overcrowding

Overcrowding is more common on tribal

measure may not ful y capture housing

lands than in the United States as a

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

81

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

quantity constraints. About 19 percent of

Most overcrowded households do not

tribal area households in the survey said

face housing affordability problems, which

they include more members than “can live

suggests that adding more household

in the unit comfortably.” Although highly

members and the incomes that come

related to overcrowding, this question

with them may relieve cost burden to

provides the respondent’s impression as

some degree. A small share of households

to whether they have adequate space,

grapples with both overcrowding and

and it is notable that the share reporting

housing cost burden, however, leaving them

this is slightly higher than the rate of

particularly vulnerable (exhibit 2.44). Across

overcrowding. Core households were much

all AIAN households, about 7 percent are

more likely to say “yes” to this question

both overcrowded and cost burdened. More

than to be overcrowded according to

extended households face this situation

the standard measure: 17 percent of core

than core families. Although 4 percent of

households had more members than

core families are both overcrowded and cost

could live comfortably in the unit, nearly

burdened, three times as many extended

double the rate of overcrowding. The share

families (12 percent) face this situation.

for extended households (29 percent)

Extent of Literal Homelessness

aligned with overcrowding rates. Taken

together, however, this suggests that space

Although overcrowding is more common,

constraints may be more severe than the

literal homelessness does still happen in

standard overcrowding measure captures.

Indian Country. In the tribal/TDHE survey,

a substantial majority of respondents (88

Exhibit 2.44 - Percent of Tribal Households that are Overcrowded by Presence of Cost Burden and Household Type, 2014-2015

Exhibit 2.44 - Percent of Tribal Households that are Overcrowded by Presence of Cost Burden and Household Type, 2013-2015

35

30

Not Cost Burdened

Cost Burdened

25

20

15

Percent of tribal households

10

5

0

All households

Core families

Extended households

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: Survey data have been weighted to be nationally representative.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

82

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

percent) said that their reservation had

more AIAN households are eligible for housing

literal homelessness, and respondents from

assistance than in the population general y.

12 of the 22 sites visited observed literal

homelessness in their communities. Further,

Perceived Characteristics of

respondents from 3 of the 22 sites said

Homeless and Near Homeless People

that a significant number of people in their

According to site visit respondents,

communities were literal y homeless.33

homelessness and near homelessness are

particularly common among people with

Prevalence of Homelessness Risk

substance use issues, veterans, and families.

Factors

Of the 13 sites where site visit respondents

To understand the level of homelessness

discussed the characteristics of those

risk in Indian Country, this section

facing literal and near homelessness in their

examines the prevalence of deep poverty

areas, respondents in eight sites noted the

(that is, living below 50 percent of the

prevalence of substance use issues. Because

federal poverty line), the largest individual-

people with histories of substance use can

level risk factor for homelessness, and

be ineligible to receive housing assistance

access to housing subsidies, which

or live with an assisted family member or

research shows is an important protective

friend, they are particularly vulnerable to

factor against homelessness (Burt, 2001;

homelessness. A respondent from Lac du

Cunningham, 2009).34

Flambeau described one such situation.

A substantial y larger share of AIAN

We had a call yesterday from a

households lives in deep poverty than U.S.

young woman who was booted out

households overal . Nearly one out of four

of her home by the housing authority,

AIAN households surveyed (23 percent) had

probably by misguided information,

family incomes that are less than 50 percent

and is living in the woods. The housing

of the federal poverty line. This figure stands

authority won’t allow her to live with

in stark contrast to the 6.6 percent rate in

her father because he lives in housing

the United States as a whole (DeNavas-Walt

authority property. She had a drug-

and Proctor, 2015), indicating substantial y

related infraction and is basically living

higher prevalence of this risk factor in the

in the woods.

tribal area population than elsewhere. This

Literal and near homelessness among

risk factor is particularly concentrated

veterans and families also was noted in

among extended households: 29 percent

multiple sites. Respondents from 4 of the

of AIAN extended households live in deep

13 sites that discussed the issue noted the

poverty compared with 16 percent among

problem of homelessness among veterans.

AIAN core family households.

American Indian veterans nationwide tend

Only about 12 percent of AIAN households

to be overrepresented among the homeless

receive housing assistance through IHBG.

veteran population. According to  Veteran

This exceeds the 4 percent of households

Homelessness: A Supplemental Report to

nationwide that receive rental assistance

the 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment

(Irving and Loveless, 2015). Because of the

Report to Congress, 2.5 percent of the 2010

greater poverty in Indian Country, however,

homeless veteran population identified as

33  The household survey did not ask about literal homelessness, but, later in this section, new data collected in that survey are used to estimate the size of the homeless population.

34  The household survey did not collect data on other elements of homelessness risk, which include health disparities and exposure to domestic and other violence, but these issues are known to be significant in Indian Country (USICH, 2012).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

83

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

American Indian compared with only 0.7

on tribal lands is difficult, but this study

percent of the veteran population overall

provides new data to help approximate the

(USICH, 2012). Respondents at two sites also

scope of the problem.

noted homelessness among AIAN families.

HUD tracks the size of the literal y homeless

Availability of Homeless Services on

population nationwide through the Point-in-

Time Count, an annual effort held on a single

Tribal Lands

night in January that counts people staying

Despite the vast majority of tribal areas having

in emergency shelters and other homeless

literal y homeless individuals (88 percent

services and those sleeping unsheltered.

according to the tribal/TDHE survey as noted

Unsheltered counts are particularly difficult

previously), the tribal/TDHE survey and site

in rural areas, including tribal areas, because

visits indicate that having homeless services

homeless people are spread out over large

is far less common. Only 46 percent of tribes/

geographic areas (Housing Assistance

TDHEs reported that their community uses

Council, 2013). Given this challenge, the

homeless shelters; respondents from only 11 of

Point-in-Time Count provides a lower-bound

the 22 sites visited said that their reservation

number of American Indians and Alaska

had a homeless shelter within its boundaries.

Natives who are literal y homeless on a single

Respondents from some areas without

night. According to the 2015 Point-in-Time

shelters said that they referred people to

Count, 15,136 American Indians and Alaska

mainstream shelters in the nearest town, but

Natives were literal y homeless across the

those were often distant. For example, the

United States on a single night in January

Lummi Nation refers households to homeless

of that year. American Indians and Alaska

services in Forks, Washington, which is a

Natives were overrepresented in the literal y

1-hour drive away. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has

homeless population. Although American

a shelter for homeless veterans in Pine Ridge.

Indians and Alaska Natives comprise only

The tribe owns the shelter building and the

1 percent of the overall population, about

land that it is on, and the U.S. Department of

3 percent of homeless people identified

Veterans Affairs funds the operations. The

American Indian or Alaska Native as their

shelter facility has 12 beds and, when the

only race (HUD, 2015a). Further, about 0.5

research team visited in November 2014, 18

percent of the AIAN-alone population was

veterans were on the waiting list. The Lumbee

homeless in the 2015 Point-in-Time Count

Tribe maintains five homes for transitional

compared with 0.1 percent of the total

housing. If someone is homeless and they are

population that is homeless (HUD, 2015a).

eligible, they can stay up to 90 days free of

These data, however, are limited in two ways:

charge. The homes are ful y furnished, with

(1) publical y available data do not allow

the cost of utilities included.

researchers to estimate homelessness only

on tribal areas, and (2) they do not capture

Estimating the Size of the Literal

the doubled-up population.35

and Near Homeless Population on

Although it cannot provide an estimate of

Tribal Lands

the size of the literal y homeless population,

Estimating the size of the homeless

the household survey provides the first

population (both those who are literal y

sample-based estimate of the doubled-

homeless and those who are doubled up)

up population across all tribal areas in

35  Publically available Point-in-Time Count data are aggregated at the continuum of care (CoC) level. CoCs are organizing bodies for homeless services and vary in their geographic scope. Some CoCs cover one urban area or one county; others cover a collection of counties; others cover an entire state. Data on tribal jurisdictions are not collected. Because of this variation, researchers cannot identify homelessness within tribal boundaries.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

84

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

the United States. About 17 percent of

had no other place to go. On average, 0.62

AIAN households include some household

people per household were nonrelatives, and

members that were staying with them only

0.63 were distant relatives, which means 0.62

because they had no other place to stay.

people per household at minimum and 1.25

Although only a small share of the heads

people at maximum are near homeless.

of these households (19 percent) would

Based on an estimated 399,400 households

ask these people to leave, the vast majority

in tribal areas at the time of the household

of them (80 percent) thought that those

survey, 67,900 households include a near

members of their household would like to get

homeless member. This yields an estimate

a place of their own if they could. Together,

of 42,100 near homeless people, using

the data suggest that these doubled-up

the average number of nonrelatives per

situations are not the household’s first choice

household, and 84,700 near homeless

and that those members would otherwise

people using the average number of

have been literal y homeless. In other words,

nonrelatives and distant relatives per

they are near homeless.

household. This translates to a near

To estimate the number of near homeless

homeless rate for AIAN households between

people, this analysis examines the

3.6 and 7.2 percent (exhibit 2.45).

composition of the households that include

Data from the AHS suggest that near

them. Overall, these households tend to

homelessness is more common among

be large, with 5.5 people, on average, and

AIAN households than among the general

include nonrelatives and distant relatives (that

population, though exactly comparable

is, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and

data for the U.S. population overall are

more distant relatives). This analysis assumes

not available. The 2013 AHS estimated

that all nonrelatives and at least some of the

that 4.4 million households, or 3.8 percent

distant relatives are most likely to be the near

of all households, were doubled up using

homeless household members, those who

Exhibit 2.45 - Estimating the Size of the Doubled Up Population

N

Percent

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas

399,400

100

With  a member with no other place to stay

67,900

17

AIAN Population in Tribal Areas

1,198,000

100

House hold members with no other place to stay

Minimum

42,100

3.6

Maximum

84,700

7.2

Source: American Community Survey for AIAN tribal households and AIAN Population in Tribal Areas; Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: The minimum estimate of household members with no other place to stay was calculated by multiplying the number of households with a member of this type by the average number of nonrelatives in those households (0.62 people). The maximum number was estimated by multiplying the number of households with a member with no other place to stay by the average number of nonrelatives and distant relatives in these households (1.25 people). The total number of AIAN households residing in tribal areas at the time of the household survey (mid point = 2014) was calculated using a straight-line method based on the growth in total AIAN households in Indian Country from the midpoint of the 2006-2010 period and 2010, extending that growth percentage to 2014.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

85

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

a much broader definition of doubled

homeownership. Of the tribes/TDHEs,

up (that is, households with at least one

75 percent reported that demand for

member who had moved out in the past

homeownership was high, 21 percent

year, which includes college students living

reported that demand for homeownership

at home for the summer, elderly household

was moderate, and only slightly more than

members who have since moved to

4 percent reported low or no demand

assisted living, and other non-near

for homeownership. Furthermore, 76

homeless people) (HUD, 2015b; AHS 2013

percent of tribes/TDHEs said demand for

estimates). Because the AHS doubled-up

homeownership had increased during the

rate is close to the minimum tribal area

past 3 years (exhibit 2.52).

estimate even though the AHS definition

In the household survey, 90 percent of

of doubling up is not restricted to near

renters responded that they would prefer to

homeless situations, the data comparison

own their own home. In addition, 90 percent

suggests that near homeless doubling up

of all respondents said they would be wil ing

is more common on tribal areas than in the

to contribute labor (from a family member

United States overall.

or their own) to build their house if it meant

2.5. Demand for and Barriers to

they could own a home. AIAN households

face a number of barriers to homeownership.

Homeownership and Mortgage

Both current homeowners and renters were

Lending

asked about barriers to homeownership

This section presents more recent

and responses were similar (exhibit 2.53). Of

and detailed national information

current homeowners, 8 percent had been

about AIAN homeownership, demand

denied a mortgage, and 9 percent of renters

for homeownership, and barriers to

had been denied a mortgage. The most

homeownership in tribal areas.

common reason for being denied mentioned

by both groups was a low credit score or lack

The census data presented in section 2.2

of a credit history. The next most common

shows that AIAN homeownership rates

reason mentioned by renters (35 percent)

in tribal areas were 67 percent in 2010.36

was not having a sufficient downpayment.

Findings of the national y representative

Of the renters, 29 percent said they did not

survey of households in tribal areas

make enough money to pay the mortgage.

conducted for this study in 2013-2015

Both renters (35 percent) and homeowners

are very similar, estimating that the AIAN

(30 percent) indicated that they were denied

homeownership rate in tribal areas was 68

mortgages because they had too much debt.

percent. Based on the household survey,

most homes (62 percent) were privately

Those who have never applied for a

owned and on nontrust land, and 20 percent

mortgage also can experience barriers to

of homes were on land owned by the tribe,

homeownership (exhibit 2.54). The responses

and 14 percent were on individual allotted

of the 90 percent of renters indicating that

trust land. Based on the survey, 66 percent

they would prefer to own a home are similar

of all AIAN homeowners in tribal areas do

to those that have applied for mortgages

not currently hold a mortgage (exhibit 2.51).

and been denied, but these responses also

capture the experiences of earlier stages in

Both tribal/TDHE survey respondents and

the homeownership decision process, such

AIAN household survey respondents living

as having sufficient savings, a regular source

in tribal areas report a strong demand for

of income, and access to a mortgage lender.

36 As noted previously, this includes HUD Mutual Help homes.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

86

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Exhibit 2.51 - Homeownership

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas  (Household Survey 2013-2015)

Percent of

Percent of Total

Confidence

Households

Total

N

n missing

Sample Missing

Standard Error

Interval

Own Home or Lease

1,340

30

2.2%

to Purchase

Buying home or

57.1

764

4.64

±9.1%

apartment with

lease/purchase or

similar

Own their own

10.8

149

1.65

±3.2%

home

Neither

32.1

397

3.44

±6.7%

Mortgage Status

913

10

1.1%

Currently holds

33.6

225

6.21

±12.2%

mortgage

Currently does not

66.4

678

6.21

±12.2%

hold mortgage

Type of Land*

913

33

3.6%

Privately owned,

62.4

427

10.27

±20.1%

non-trust land

Allotment land

13.5

138

5.04

±9.9%

(individual trust

land)

Land owned by the

21.1

279

5.98

±1 .7%

tribe (whether in

trust or not)

Other

3.0

36

0.86

±1.7%

Type of unit*

913

17

1.9%

Farm

3.5

25

1.04

±2.0%

Ranch

2.0

19

0.78

±1.5%

Mobile home

13.7

162

3.01

±5.9%

Manufactured home

9.3

76

2.15

±4.2%

House/townhouse/

71.5

614

4.82

±9.4%

apartment/other

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: * denotes question asked only of current homeowners.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

87

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

The barrier most often mentioned by this

borrower credit, fractional property

group (60 percent) was the inability to save

ownership, challenged borrower finances

enough for a downpayment, followed by low

(lower income and savings and higher

credit score or no credit history (46 percent),

debt), and processing hurdles (delays in

and inability to afford the monthly mortgage

environmental review and land title reports).

payment (32 percent). It is interesting that 29

Lender discrimination was mentioned as

percent of this group mentioned that they

one of the top three barriers by a relatively

did not know how to buy a home or were

small percentage of tribes/TDHEs (8

unfamiliar with the loan application, lending

percent) and AIAN households interested

terms, or real estate transactions; and 17

in homeownership, but it was mentioned

percent mentioned that they could not find

as a barrier by 16 percent of renters that

a mortgage lender in the area. Respondents

are interested in homeownership. Another

also mentioned a lack of available and

report completed for this study,  Mortgage

affordable homes for sale.

Lending on Tribal Land (Listokin et al., 2016),

Results from the tribal/TDHE survey reflect

describes a changing landscape regarding

similar perceptions to those reported by AIAN

mortgage lending in Indian Country with

households. Tribal/TDHE survey respondents

greater lending activity and a lessening of

were asked to state the three most important

once seemingly intractable problems, such

barriers to getting AIAN households in

as those related to tribal trust land. Section

tribal areas to apply for a mortgage, with

3.7 of this report describes housing policies

the following results: insufficient income

and programs designed to address many

(reported by 77 percent of those surveyed),

of the barriers identified in the tribal/TDHE

no or blemished credit history (reported by

and household surveys.

72 percent), lack of savings (by 61 percent),

wariness of lenders (by 33 percent), and

paperwork issues (by 31 percent).

Exhibit 2.52 - Homeownership Preference as Reported on the

Tribes/TDHEs reported the following

Tribal/TDHE Survey

sources of mortgage lending in their

respective service areas: private lenders (85

Strength of Preference for Homeownership

percent); rural housing services (46 percent);

Percent reporting

tribe and tribal lenders (41 percent); other

High

75.0

(36 percent); and Federal Home Loan Bank

Moderate

20.7

(27 percent). When asked to state the top

Low

4.2

three barriers to attracting lenders, tribes/

Share of Response

100

TDHEs mentioned: (1) uncertainty about

N

110

recovery of mortgaged property in the

event of foreclosure (77 percent), trust land

Trend in Preference Over Past 3 Years

status (58 percent), and lack of mortgage

Percent reporting

institutions (44 percent). A separate survey

Increased

76.1

of lenders in Indian Country conducted as

Decreased

4.1

part of this study finds that lenders report

much the same challenges as those reported

Stayed the Same

19.8

by tribes/TDHEs.37 Major challenges

Share of Response

98.2

to mortgage lending in Indian Country

N

110

reported by lenders were blemished

Source: Tribal/TDHE Survey 2014-2015

37  See Listokin et al. (2016).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

88

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Site visits documented a diverse set of

very important: “…what helped me was

homeownership challenges and solutions

Indian Health Service. They funded the well

for AIAN households. Most sites reported

and septic at 100 percent [of the cost].

demand for homeownership. Housing

That was a big part, as we could use that

agency and other respondents reported

as our downpayment.”

that the greatest barriers were tribes’ and

For some sites, such as Gila River, Makah,

individuals’ lack of funds and capacity

and Acoma Pueblo, the concepts of

in developing homes, credit issues, high

homeownership and mortgages are

infrastructure costs, tribal politics, and

quite new, and as discussed in section 3,

reluctance to deal with the stresses of

a number of tribes are turning attention

maintaining a home. Many respondents

to homebuyer education. Several tribes

stressed the difficulties in obtaining a

mentioned that land is still held in tribal

deed or proving ownership (needed for

trust or kept in families, so few houses

a mortgage) in Indian Country. In some

are available for purchase. At other sites,

cases homebuyers need to install basic

however, a variety of programs were used

infrastructure (electricity, septic, and so on)

to help clients with homeownership and

when they purchase a house, adding to the

develop new housing. For example, the

expense. One Lac du Flambeau respondent

Choctaw Nation has its own purchasing and

noted that getting such costs covered was

financing program (Choctaw Home Finance

Exhibit 2.53 -  Barriers to Obtaining a Mortgage

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas (Household Survey (2013 - 2015)

HOMEOWNERS

RENTERS

Total

N

n missing

Total

N

n missing

Mortgage denied

913

5

427

15

Yes

8.4

59

8.6

43

No

91.6

849

91.4

369

Reasons mortgage was denied

59

43

Didn’t have a sufficient down payment

14.8

9

0

35.4

14

0

Don’t make enough money to pay the mortgage

9.7

5

0

28.9

13

0

Don’t have a job

10.0

4

0

7.6

4

0

Don’t have a long/good job history

3.5

4

0

16.0

9

0

My credit score was too low/ didn’t have a credit

45.7

27

0

60.7

23

0

history

Too much debt (credit cards, student loans, medical/

29.8

13

0

34.6

16

0

health care costs)

There were issues about the title to the land or

5.0

6

0

3.3

3

0

property rights

I felt I was discriminated against because I am

10.0

7

0

15.4

5

0

American Indian/Alaska Native

Other

17.2

13

0

19.6

8

0

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

89

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

Cooperative) developed with Wel s Fargo

interviews with housing staff. From the

and PMI Mortgage Insurance, and the Lac

1990 census to the 2006–2010 ACS, the

du Flambeau Reservation works with a CDFI

total number of AIAN households in tribal

that operates a loan fund.

areas (AIAN-alone plus AIAN multiracial)

increased by 58 percent to a total population

In conclusion, part 2 describes housing

of 370,900. Although physical housing

market conditions in tribal areas and

problems (such as plumbing/kitchen

addresses the central question of this

deficiencies) and overcrowding of AIAN

assessment: What are the extent and nature

households in tribal areas appear to have

of AIAN housing problems and needs?

improved since 1990, these problems are

It examines evidence from census data,

still much more severe than those faced by

a survey of households in tribal areas, a

U.S. households, on average. The 2006–2010

survey of tribal/TDHE directors, and onsite

Exhibit 2.54  - Barriers to Homeownership Reported by Renters

AIAN Households in Tribal Areas (Household Survey 2013-2015)

Percent of Total

Confidence

Percent of Households

Total

N

n missing

Sample Missing

Standard Error

Interval

Barriers faced when buying home **

1,266

Can’t save enough for a house/can’t afford

60.0

510

410

32.4%

2.01

±3.9%

down payment (down payment)

Can’t afford the monthly mortgage

32.4

272

410

32.4%

2.44

±4.8%

payment

Can’t find a mortgage lender in the area

17.5

156

410

32.4%

2.34

±4.6%

Can’t resolve land rights (property rights)

10.5

103

410

32.4%

3.41

±6.7%

Don’t have collateral to get a loan because

13.5

148

410

32.4%

2.11

±4.1%

my land is held in trust

Don’t have a job

25.5

235

410

32.4%

2.80

±5.5%

Don’t have a long/good job history

13.3

124

410

32.4%

1.39

±2.7%

My credit score was too low/didn’t have a

45.6

388

410

32.4%

3.22

±6.3%

credit history

Too much debt (credit cards, student loans,

27.3

227

410

32.4%

2.05

±4.0%

medical/health care costs)

No housing available in a location I want

19.8

212

410

32.4%

2.67

±5.2%

to live

No affordable housing in my area

20.2

183

410

32.4%

1.66

±3.3%

No houses are available for sale or being

18.5

187

410

32.4%

2.22

±4.3%

built that are suitable for me/my family

Don’t know how to buy a home/unfamiliar

28.6

249

410

32.4%

1.79

±3.5%

with loan application process, lending

terms, or real estate transactions

Lenders are more likely to deny applications

16.2

183

410

32.4%

2.42

±4.7%

from American Indian/Alaska Native

Source: Urban Institute Household Survey 2013-2015

Notes: * denotes question asked only of current renters

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

90

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs

ACS indicates that the U.S. average share of

to stay, yielding an estimate of between

households with these problems (4 percent)

42,000 and 85,000 people in tribal areas

was less than one-third the AIAN tribal area

who are doubled up because they have no

share (13 percent). Although the AIAN tribal

place else to stay.

area rate had dropped from being 5.6 times

The household survey uses a national y

worse than the U.S. average, to 3.3 times

representative sample to create national

that average, the gap was still substantial.

estimates of housing needs for all of Indian

Housing problems and conditions vary

Country, including the Alaska tribal areas.

across tribal areas and are far more severe in

The research team estimates that, as of

three geographic areas: New Mexico/Arizona,

2014-2015, a total of 68,000 new units were

the Plains, and northwestern Alaska vil ages.

needed to replace severely inadequate units

Using census data on household types and

and eliminate overcrowding.

sizes along with household survey data on

The household survey also confirms that a

variations in household composition, and

strong preference for homeownership exists

views on these topics gleaned from the

in tribal areas. Most renters want to become

tribal/TDHE survey and onsite interviews,

homeowners but face barriers due to low

part 2 provides new information about the

credit score, lack of a credit history, or not

nature of overcrowding and homelessness

having a sufficient downpayment.

in tribal areas. Overcrowding in many

tribal areas is strikingly more severe than

Part 3 turns to housing policies and

elsewhere in the United States as a whole

programs that address housing needs and

(11 percent of AIAN households in larger

conditions and the program options for

tribal areas compared with only 3 percent

addressing demand for homeownership in

of households nationwide). The household

Indian Country.

survey finds an even higher rate of

overcrowding among tribal area households.

About 16 percent of tribal households were

overcrowded, meaning their household

included more than 1 person per room, and

about 6 percent were severely overcrowded

(that is, more than 1.5 persons per room).

In the household survey, 17 percent of

household heads said they did have some

household members that were living with

them only because they had no other place

Choctaw -- http://www.choctawhousing.com/services/

affordable-rental-housing.aspx

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

91

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Part 3. Housing Policies

culminating in a full description of NAHASDA—

its purposes and the way it is administered.

and Programs

The final paragraphs of this section review

program funding (sources and uses of funds).

Section 3.3 reviews the changes in the size

and composition of the HUD-assisted housing

3.1. Introduction

stock in tribal areas, and the way both

Parts 1 and 2 of this report described the

program administrators and residents view the

circumstances of American Indians and

quality and adequacy of this housing. These

Alaska Natives (AIANs), and changes during

sections natural y give emphasis to the Indian

the past two decades. Key points are—

Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, which

is the central vehicle for providing housing

•  The AIAN population continues to grow

assistance under NAHASDA.

fairly rapidly in Indian Country nationwide.

This is followed by a deeper look at the

•  While the gaps have been diminishing

organizations that administer and manage

for some measures, the socioeconomic

operations under NAHASDA in tribal areas,

well-being of the AIAN population

including discussions of how they are

remains considerably less than that of

organized and staffed, their activities, and

most Americans.

how they perform this work (section 3.4).

Section 3.5 reviews the contributions of

•  AIAN housing problems and needs,

other federal programs that provide housing

particularly in tribal areas, are stil

assistance in Indian Country, supplementing

much more serious than those of other

efforts under the IHBG.

Americans general y.

An examination of the challenges of

Part 3 reviews U.S. housing policy under

developing new housing in Indian Country

what is now the dominant structure for

under the IHBG is provided in section 3.6,

providing federal housing assistance in

based largely on information provided by

Indian Country: the Native American

tribal/Tribally Designated Housing Entity

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination

(TDHE) leaders and staff (via surveys and

Act (NAHASDA), enacted in 1996. As noted

onsite interviews). This section also highlights

in the introduction to this report, this study

a number of production success stories

did not formal y evaluate performance under

that have been identified. Section 3.7 is

NAHASDA. Nonetheless, findings have a

similar, but focuses on efforts to expand

great deal to say about how the component

homeownership, including the role played by

programs have been working, offering many

the changing availability of mortgage lending.

findings and conclusions that should prove

of value to federal and tribal officials in their

NAHASDA contains a charge not present in

efforts to improve program effectiveness.

earlier legislation, namely that tribes use their

federal resources in part to strengthen the

This part of the report begins by providing

private housing markets in their areas. Section

information on the historical and institutional

3.8 explains how this is working out, covering

context that will help readers understand the

both challenges and solutions. Final y, section

more substantive findings to follow. Section

3.9 draws from this study as a whole to

3.2 reviews the evolution of federal housing

discuss the overall impact NAHASDA has had

assistance in Indian Country since it began,

since it was enacted two decades ago.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

92

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

3.2. The Evolution of Federal

and managing assisted housing in Indian

Housing Assistance in Indian Country  Country.38 Two major programs were

mobilized under the aegis of the 1937 Act.

The Kingsley et al. (1996) report provided

a fairly complete history of how federal

1.  The Low-Rent Program—essentially

housing assistance in AIAN tribal areas

the national public housing program,

was first developed and then evolved.

implemented in Indian Country. HUD

This section provides a brief summary of

grants went to IHAs who used them to

that history before 1996 and then tel s a

acquire the rights to land and build new

more complete story of the subsequent

units, or acquire and rehabilitate existing

establishment and operation of activity

ones, for rent by low-income families.

under NAHASDA.

The IHAs then managed the properties

and received additional federal funds to

The “1937 Act” Programs

cover the difference between allowable

operating costs and tenants' payments

The deep poverty and deplorable living

toward rent (set not to exceed 30 percent

conditions in tribal areas were recognized as

of the tenant’s adjusted income).

a concern by policymakers early in the 20th

century. The Snyder Act of 1921 authorized

2. The Mutual Help Program—one of a very

the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau

few federal programs that have offered

of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide a broad

homeownership opportunities to low-

range of assistance to those areas, which

income families. As in the rental program,

could have included housing; however, no

IHAs developed new housing with HUD

action was taken on the housing front for

grants, but purchasers were responsible for

four decades after that.

all operating and maintenance costs. The

purchasing household had to make an initial

Initiating Federal Housing Assistance

$1,500 contribution (but tribes often met

Federal housing assistance was not available

this requirement on behalf of the household

to any low-income Americans until the

by contributing the land), and make a

passage of the United States Housing Act

monthly “homebuyer payment” (set by

of 1937, which created the Public Housing

the IHAs at between 15 and 30 percent of

Program; many expected that form of

household income) for up to 30 years. The

assistance to be extended to Indian Country.

program was actual y a “lease-purchase”

Public housing development soon proceeded

arrangement. A portion of the monthly

rapidly in many urban areas, but it was not

payment made by the families covered an

until 1961 that the Office of the General

administrative fee, but the remainder was

Counsel of the Public Housing Administration

credited to an equity account that was

determined that American Indian tribal

used to purchase the home. Families do not

governments were eligible “municipalities”

actual y gain title to their properties until al

that could receive public housing support.

of their payment obligations have been met

(expected to happen within 25 years).

After that determination was made, the

Public Housing Administration (with help

The central management of these two

from BIA) began to work with the tribes

programs was transferred to HUD when it

to establish a network of Indian Housing

was created in 1965. At HUD, the programs

Authorities (IHAs) capable of developing

were simply administered as a part of the

38  The IHAs were similar to the public housing authorities that administer public housing elsewhere. They are appointed by local officials but operate under federal rules and oversight.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

93

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

public housing program until a separate

the low-rent program had 24,500 housing

Office of Indian Housing was established

units in management and Mutual Help

in the mid-1970s. In 1976, the first Indian

had another 42,900, for a total of 67,400.

housing regulations were published separate

These two programs were then housing

from those for public housing. During

more than one-fourth (25.9 percent) of the

subsequent years, pressure increased for

234,400 total AIAN households living in

an even more distinct approach to Indian

tribal areas nationwide; 42 percent of low-

housing. Congress passed the “Indian

income AIAN households in tribal areas

Housing Act of 1988,” which, for the first

(Kingsley et al., 1996: table 3.5).

time, established a statutory commitment

Dissatisfaction with these programs also

to the provision of Indian housing assistance

existed on several levels. A 1978 U.S.

outside of the general framework of the 1937

General Accounting Office report (GAO,

Act. HUD then developed new consolidated

1978) stated that the programs remained

regulations for Indian housing.

underfunded in relation to the need but

Through the 1970s and 1980s, substantial

also addressed overly complex procedures,

operating capacity was built in the IHAs

a lack of flexibility, coordination problems,

in tribal areas and the low-rent and

and the lack of sufficiently trained personnel.

Mutual Help programs developed rapidly.

Underlying the problems of complexity

Although these two programs were by

and lack of flexibility, of course, was the

far the dominant forms of federal housing

unhappiness of many tribal leaders with the

assistance in Indian Country, other forms

extent to which HUD controlled program

were also being made available at a

plans and operations. HUD officials

smaller scale. These included tenant-based

had to approve the details of housing

assistance (called Section 8 certificates

plans submitted by the IHAs, and tribal

or housing vouchers, initiated nationwide

governments thought they had insufficient

in 1974); the BIA’s Housing Improvement

influence over IHA activities.

Program (HIP—a production program for

In 1989, Congress designated a National

very low-income families, established in

Commission on American Indian, Alaska

1965); funds from two national block grant

Native and Native Hawai an Housing to

programs that could be used for housing—

investigate the situation. It presented

the Community Development Block Grant

its findings in a 1992 report (National

(CDBG) and the HOME program; assistance

Commission, 1992) concluding that many

from the Farmers Home Administration

of these problems persisted. HUD then

(FmHA); and financing assistance through

moved aggressively to try to address

the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

the issues, implementing a number of

Section 248 mortgage insurance program,

administrative changes the commission had

established in 1987. More will be said

recommended. In addition, HUD revised

about how these programs work and their

program regulations to significantly reduce

contributions later in part 3.

and simplify operating rules and provide

Important Accomplishments, but

more flexibility to local implementers.

Residual Issues

In May 1993, action was taken to further

The contribution of the 1937 Act programs

consolidate the coordination of AIAN

in Indian Country in its first quarter century

programs within HUD. Since 1982, much of

has not been well recognized. By 1990,

HUD’s interaction with the tribes and IHAs

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

94

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

had taken place via six regional Offices of

Federal assistance in and of itself will

Indian Programs (OIPs). In the 1993 changes,

never be a sufficient or appropriate

(1) the OIP title was replaced with Office

way to deal with the full range of

of Native American Programs (ONAP—

housing problems and opportunities in

better reflecting the inclusion of natives

Indian Country. Further priority needs

from Alaska); (2) responsibility for the

to be given to economic development

Indian CDBG program was transferred from

in tribal areas with related policy

HUD’s Office of Community Planning and

thrust to encourage more private

Development to ONAP; and (3) the six field

investment in Indian housing.

offices (now called Area Offices of Native

(Kingsley et al., 1996: 232)

American Programs—AONAPs) would

thereafter report directly to ONAP, rather

The Native American Housing

than to HUD Regional Administrators.

Assistance and Self-Determination Act

These changes by HUD were general y much

With this background, tribal leaders,

appreciated in Indian Country, but they stil

Congress, and HUD worked collaboratively

fell short of expectations in an era in which

in the mid-1990s to craft new legislation that

“self-determination” had become the central

would transform the way housing assistance

theme of U.S. Indian policy.

would be delivered in tribal areas. The result

was NAHASDA, signed into law on October

The Kingsley et al. (1996) report provided a

26, 1996 (P.L. 104-330, as amended).39

comprehensive assessment of the 1937 Act

programs and HUD’s administration of them.

The Act opens with several congressional

It recognized both the contribution these

“findings” that, among other things,

programs had made, and HUD’s efforts to

explicitly reaffirm the “unique trust

streamline regulations and make them work

responsibility of the United States to protect

more effectively. Nonetheless, one of its

and support Indian people,” including its

central conclusions strongly reinforced the

“special role in providing affordable homes

arguments for self-determination:

in a safe and healthy environment.” These

findings also state that “…the Federal

…mostly because of categorical

government shall work to assist in the

constraints inherent in their authorizing

development of private housing finance

legislation, the Rental and Mutual

mechanisms on Indian land,” and that

Help programs provide neither the

“Federal assistance shall be provided

incentives nor the flexibility needed for

in a manner that recognizes Indian self-

tribal and IHA officials to apply federal

determination and tribal self-governance.”

funds creatively to address housing

needs in Indian Country efficiently and

Basic Objectives, Activities, and

effectively. (Kingsley et al., 1996: 189)

Eligibility

In addition, the Kingsley et al. (1996)

Under NAHASDA, the tribes have both

report drew attention to the need for

more responsibility and more flexibility.

economic development to support

They have greater flexibility to determine

housing development. The call for

what types of products and services they

economic development reflected a

offer, how they will deliver programs and

theme that turned out to be important in

projects, and whom they serve (although,

subsequent legislation:

with certain specified exceptions, they are

39  Materials in this section are adapted from documents prepared by ONAP: its  NAHASDA Essentials (HUD/ONAP, 2011) and its annual  Report to Congress (most recently, HUD/ONAP, 2014).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

95

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

still required to serve low-income families

economic and community development

as required under the U.S. Housing Act

for Indian tribes and their members.

of 1937—see further discussion in later

•  Plan for and integrate infrastructure

sections). Perhaps most notably, NAHASDA

resources for Indian tribes with housing

changed the delivery mechanism.40

development for Indian tribes.

•  It provided for an  IHBG. Both the annual

•  Promote the development of private

grant received by tribes and the program

capital markets in Indian Country and

that directs the use of this grant are

allow such markets to operate and grow,

known as IHBG. IHBG is a program

thereby benefiting Indian communities.

that provides funding to eligible tribes

nationwide; funding is allocated according

Section 202 of the statute permits a variety

to a formula.

of  activities to provide affordable housing

and to assist low-income families living in

•  It provided that IHBG funds and other

affordable housing units.

assistance would be given directly to

Indian tribes rather than to IHAs. Tribes

•   Indian Housing Assistance.  This includes

may run the program directly or may

modernization and operating assistance

designate a TDHE to administer it on

for housing previously developed or

their behalf. The tribes may designate

operated under the 1937 Act programs.

their old IHA to administer the program,

Rent and utility subsidies for this housing

and many have done so; in that case,

are also in this category.

the IHA thereafter works directly for the

tribe. More than 580 tribes receive IHBG

•   Housing Development.  This can include

funding (HUD/PD&R, 2015b).

property acquisition, new construction

of affordable housing, reconstruction,

The law states that the primary  objectives of

moderate or substantial rehabilitation,

NAHASDA are to—

site improvements, the development

of utilities and utility services,

•  Assist and promote affordable housing

demolition, and other rehabilitation and

activities to develop, maintain and operate

construction activities.

affordable housing in safe and healthy

environments on Indian reservations and

•   Housing Services.  This is the provision

in other Indian areas for occupancy by

for services related to affordable housing,

low-income Indian families.

which can include housing counseling,

the establishment and support of

•  Ensure better access to private mortgage

resident management organizations,

markets for Indian tribes and their

energy auditing, and other services

members and promote self-sufficiency of

related to assisting owners, tenants,

Indian tribes and their members.

contractors and other entities that

•  Coordinate activities to provide housing

participate in the program.

for Indian tribes and their members with

federal, state, and local activities to further

40  The statute contains seven title sections: I—Block Grants and Grant Requirements (covers the Indian Housing Plan [IHP] and other federal requirements), II—Affordable Housing Activities (covers eligible activities, low-income targeting, and other program requirements), III—Allocation of Grant Amounts (covers the annual allocation and the formula), IV—Compliance Audit and Reports (covers remedies for noncompliance, monitoring, and performance reports), V— Termination of Assistance for Indian Tribes Under Incorporated Programs (covers repealed programs), VI—Federal Guarantees for Financing for Tribal Housing Activities (covers the provisions for the loan guarantee program), and VII—Other Housing Assistance for Native Americans (covers loan guarantees, leasehold interests in trust or restricted lands for housing, training and technical assistance, and Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

96

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

•   Housing Management Services.

equitable and fair to eligible recipients.41

This includes preparation of work

The grantee may be the tribe or a TDHE

specifications, loan processing,

that administers the program on behalf

inspections, tenant selection,

of the tribe.42 The formula is calculated

management of tenant-based rental

annual y, depending upon the annual IHBG

assistance, operation and maintenance

appropriation from Congress. The first IHBG

of units developed with IHBG funds

formula run produces estimated allocations

and management of affordable housing

that are sent to both tribes and TDHEs

projects.

(completed on June 1). Final allocations

are completed after appropriations are

•   Crime Prevention and Safety.  This   covers

announced and a previous year carryover

safety, security and law enforcement

is determined. The date of the final formula

measures to protect residents of

run varies each year depending on when the

affordable housing from crime.

President signs the appropriations into law.

The formula contains two components.

•   Model Activities.  This category includes

activities supportive of affordable housing

1.   Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS)

within the goals of the statute that are

relates to funding for the continued

not explicitly included in the previously

management of housing units still

discussed activities. Examples include

operated by the tribes that were

the construction of community buildings,

previously developed under the 1937 Act

daycare centers, job training centers, and

programs. Tribes update information on

maintenance storage buildings.

the FCAS stock they continue to manage

each year. Two elements are considered

•   Administration and Planning.  Recipients

in calculating the FCAS portion of the

may spend up to 20 percent of their grant

formula: an operating subsidy and an

amount on administration and planning of

al ocation for modernization.

IHBG related activities.

2.  Need is calculated using seven weighted

NAHASDA regulations (§ 1000.1040) define

factors, which consider the local

eligible beneficiaries to specifical y include

population’s income levels, the condition

(1) low-income Indian families whose income

of existing housing, and the level of

does not exceed 80 percent of the median

housing costs. The need allocation is

income for the area; (2) non low-income

adjusted for local area cost differences.

Indian families whose income exceeds 80

Data on these components are drawn

percent of the area median, but may be

from the census and from HUD sources.

assisted by NAHASDA funding under certain

Tribes may challenge data through a

specified circumstances; and (3) non-Indian

specified process. The amount that any

families whose housing needs cannot be

one tribe will receive is determined by

met without IHBG assistance and the grant

its formula numbers and by the overall

recipient agrees that the family’s presence

programmatic funding for that year.

is essential to the wel -being of the Indian

families living in the tribal area.

Grant recipients are allowed to provide

benefits in an  Indian Area, which refers

The  IHBG formula is used to allocate

to the area within which an Indian tribe

grant funding in a manner intended to be

41  Regulatory requirements that implement the formula are in Subpart D. Allocation Formula, §§ 1000.301-1000.340.

42  NAHASDA states that “the term ‘Indian tribe’ means a tribe that is a federally recognized tribe or a State-recognized tribe,” but further clarifies that the only state-recognized tribes that qualify are those that received HUD 1937 Act assistance before the effective date of NAHASDA.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

97

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

operates affordable housing programs or

and amended Section 106 to require that

the area in which a TDHE is authorized by

HUD initiate a negotiated rulemaking in

one or more Indian tribes to operate. This

January 2010 (75 FR 423). An important

includes the tribes own tribal area (the

amendment to the law in 2000 added Title

geographic area over which the Indian tribe

VIII, providing for a new Native Hawai an

can exercise court jurisdiction), and may

Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program,

include other (normal y adjacent) areas

operated separately by the State of Hawaii

where the tribe can document that it has

Department of Hawai an Home Lands.

formal y agreed to provide housing services

Federal Guarantee for Financing

under a Memorandum of Agreement with

Tribal Housing Activities

that jurisdiction.

Private lenders and investors historical y

Regulations and Amendments

were reluctant to do business in Indian

To interpret and implement NAHASDA,

Country (due to remote locations,

regulations are developed by HUD and

cumbersome procedures related to trust

tribes nationwide through negotiated

lands, and other reasons). Title VI of the

rulemaking. The process of developing the

Act, allows HUD to guarantee 95 percent

regulations was mandated by Section 106(b)

of outstanding principal and interest on a

of the statute. The original regulations were

loan made by a private lender to an IHBG

developed using a 58-member Negotiated

recipient for affordable housing activities.

Rulemaking Committee, which included

Borrowers pledge a portion of their current

tribal leaders from across the country, and

and future IHBG funds as security.

also HUD staff. This unusual way of writing

The guarantee has proven to be a workable

regulations is significant because this was

incentive to private lenders. Since the

the first step in implementing the “self-

program began operating (in fiscal year [FY]

determination” intention of NAHASDA.

2000), through FY 2015, HUD issued 86

The IHBG regulations replace the U.S.

Title VI loan guarantees, totaling more than

Housing Act of 1937 regulations (at §

$220 mil ion. Under these guarantees, 3,080

950), and set forth the necessary policies

housing units have been built, rehabilitated,

and procedures for the administration of

or supported with new infrastructure.

grants made to eligible recipients under

the IHBG program. HUD is in the fourth

Operating and Monitoring Activities

round of negotiated rulemaking: (1) 1997 to

Under NAHASDA

1998 for implementation, (2) 2004 for the

formula, (3) 2010 to 2012 for implementing

A number of procedural steps are specified

reauthorization, and (4) 2013 and ongoing

to secure accountability and effectiveness

for the formula.

in program operations. First, al  recipients

of IHBG funds are required to prepare, and

NAHASDA, which was signed into law in

submit to HUD (ONAP), an annual  Indian

1996, was further amended on October

Housing Plan (IHP) that spel s out how

21, 1998; December 27, 2000; November

they intend to use the funds they receive

13, 2002; October 30, 2004; December

under their IHBG and from other sources for

22, 2005; August 8, 2005; and October

housing related activities in the coming year.

14, 2008. The Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-411,

The IHP must describe the recipient’s existing

approved October 14, 2008) reauthorized

housing stock, assess housing needs, and

NAHASDA through September 30, 2013,

determine how resources will be expended.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

98

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Second, all recipients must also prepare

to correct or remedy any noncompliance

and submit an  Annual Performance Report

that has been discovered. ONAP may

(APR). These cover the financial side of

provide technical assistance at that point

operations for the year (with breakdowns

to help the recipient deal with the issues

of sources and uses of funds), and quantify

at hand. ONAP then monitors steps taken

what the recipient has accomplished under

to resolve the issues and, when results are

the program. Until 2013, grantees were

not satisfactory, may impose remedies

required to submit one APR for each open

or sanctions as deemed necessary and

grant. In 2013, HUD revised this policy so

appropriate. In FY 2013, ONAP completed

that grantees now have to submit only one

72 onsite monitoring reviews of this kind.

overall APR per year.

Technical assistance and training, however,

Performance monitoring is the responsibility

is an even greater emphasis for ONAP

of both the recipients and ONAP. Recipient

(provided to its own staff and also to

self-monitoring requires all grant recipients

grant recipients and their staffs). ONAP’s

to annual y assess their own programs

TA/Training agenda touches on almost

for compliance with program rules, and

all topics related to the development and

to report the results to their constituents

operation of affordable housing under

and also to HUD. ONAP has prepared

NAHASDA. Much of it is arranged and

(and regularly updates) a  Self-Monitoring

delivered locally without using outside

Guidebook to assist grantees with this task.

contractors. At this level, Area ONAP staff

train tribal and TDHE staff as needed,

ONAP monitoring occurs in several ways

routinely responding to tribal requests.

through processes designed to “respect

This entails preparing explanatory and

tribal sovereignty and self-governance”

training materials, and conducting local

(see the ONAP  Grants Evaluation

workshops and training sessions.

Guidebook). First, the data in all APRs

are entered into a Performance Tracking

Other training is developed at the national

Database (PTD) that yields a variety

level, and does often involve outside

of reports. These reports are analyzed

contractors and consultants. Topics

by ONAP staff to assess performance

covered in FY 2013 included, for example,

comprehensively (covering program

“NAHASDA Essentials,” “Indian Housing Plan

accomplishments, how activities are being

and Performance Report,” “Environmental

carried out, and financial performance).

Review,” “Procurement,” and “Youth

Organization Development.”

Second, ONAP reviews and assesses

activities of selected recipients in depth

In 2012, ONAP switched from traditional

and on site, using a “risk-based approach.”

contracting to a Notice of Funds

Each year, a risk-assessment process

Availability (NOFA) process to procure

identifies grant recipients considered to

outside services in these areas, and this

have the greatest potential for using funds

has enabled a notable program expansion.

inappropriately or otherwise failing to

The number of trainings and technical

meet statutory or regulatory requirements.

assistance engagements reached 99 in

After the selected recipients have been

FY 2013 (45 completed and 54 in process)

assessed, ONAP issues a report to them

compared with 23 per year under the

that recognizes their accomplishments and

previous contracting process.

also provides recommendations on how

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

99

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Funding and Financial Performance

$600 to $650 mil ion range (nominal dollars,

that is, not adjusted for inflation) during the

The following paragraphs first describe the

life of the program. In FY 2009, the American

levels of funding Congress has provided

Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of

for the IHBG since the program became

2009 provided an additional $497.25 mil ion

operational. They then review the sources of

in IHBG funds.43 In total, $11.3 bil ion was

income for tribal activities under the overall

appropriated from FY 1998 to FY 2014, an

NAHASDA umbrel a, and how IHBG funds

average of $667 mil ion per year. In both FYs

have been spent, by category.

2015 and 2016, Congress appropriated $650

mil ion to the Block Grant account.

IHBG Funding

In every year, some set-asides have been

The top line in exhibit 3.21 shows the IHBG

available, but the vast majority of the funds

funding appropriated by Congress year-

have been awarded to grant recipients via

by-year since the program became ful y

the formula. Set-asides in recent years have

operational in 1998 through FY 2014. After

typical y ranged from approximately $4 mil ion

the 1998 grant ($589 mil ion) the annual

to $8 mil ion, and are used to (1) fund the

levels have remained relatively constant in the

43  The ARRA provided funds for housing programs in Indian Country in addition to the amounts authorized by Congress for IHBG directly.

This included a $255 million addition to the formula distribution and a separate $242.25 million under a competitive distribution. For a more complete explanation, see ONAP (2012: 9).

Exhibit 3.21 - Amoun

Exhibit 3.21 - Amoun t of IHBG F

t of IHBG F unds A

unds Aw w

ar arded, 1998 t

ded, 1998 t o 20

o 2014 14

800

700

600

)

500

Constant 1998 Dollars

400

Nominal Dollars

300

1998 Dollars (in millions

200

100

0

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Year

Source: HUD ONAP LOCCS Report, current as of June 1, 2015.

Note: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an additional $504,201,481 in IHBG funding.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

100

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Title VI loan guarantee program (usual y $2

(TDC)44 for a 3-bedroom housing unit

mil ion annual y); (2) cover HUD expenses on

grew from $183,937 in 2006 to $329,839

inspections, contracting, and other program

in 2014, an increase of 79 percent.45

assistance; and (3) contract with national and

Total Funding by Source (Sources of

regional organizations to provide technical

Funds)

assistance and training to IHBG recipients.

In the spirit of NAHASDA, tribes use

It is extremely important to point out,

their IHBG resources for direct housing

however, that the program’s buying power has

investment, but also in ways that can

declined markedly over the years. The lower

leverage a larger pool of resources for

line in exhibit 3.21 shows grant amounts each

housing improvement in their service areas.

year in  constant (1998) dollars. The totals

go down from the $599 mil ion of 1998 to a

Exhibit 3.22 is a summary of APR data on

low of $428 mil ion in 2013, only 73 percent

all NAHASDA-related funding the grantees

of what the program could have purchased

have been awarded from the start of

at the 1998 level. The 17-year constant dollar

the program through FY 2013 (nominal

total was $8.8 bil ion, an average of $516

dollars). The IHBG total is $7.4 bil ion, which

mil ion annual y, which is much less than the

represents 71 percent of the IHBG awards to

average of allocated nominal dollars not

recipients through FY 2014.

adjusted for inflation ($667 mil ion per year).

The table shows a total of $9.0 bil ion in total

Two other factors further contribute to

related funding to these recipients during this

the reduced buying power of NAHASDA

period. Grantees are required to report al

funding amounts since 1998: (1) population

the HUD funding they receive in their APR.

growth and (2) increased construction costs.

Tribes/TDHEs typical y report related funds

they receive from other sources on this form

1.  Not only has IHBG funding not kept pace

as wel . However, the totals in exhibit 3.22

with inflation, but it also has not kept

probably understate the true totals awarded

pace with population growth in tribal

from all sources. Nonetheless, it is worth

areas. During the period of 1999 to 2014,

reviewing the amounts reported because they

the AIAN population grew 59 percent.

do show amounts substantial y in excess of

Because of this growth, the per capita

the IHBG alone.

IHBG allocation in nominal dollars went

from $573 to $386.

The IHBG grant itself is clearly dominant,

accounting for 82 percent of the

2. Construction costs have outpaced

$9.0 billion reported total. The most

inflation-related price increases, and

understandable way to talk about the

to the extent that IHBG is used to fund

amounts in the other categories may be

construction, the Consumer Price Index

to express them as a function of the IHBG

understates the erosion of the grant’s

amount. For example, the grantees had

value. The average total development cost

been awarded $121.65 in total funding for

44  TDC is calculated by averaging the current construction costs for a moderately designed house as listed in not less than two nationally recognized residential construction cost indices. These indices draw their data from surveys of construction costs in a geographic area.

Multipliers for each area are applied against these basic numbers to provide costs that are specific to a geographic location. A second multiplier is then applied to account for nonconstruction costs (administration, planning, site acquisition, financing, and so on). Site-based utility costs are included. Off-site costs such as water, sewer, roads, and so on, are excluded. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/

program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/regs/notices.

45  TDCs vary considerably across tribal areas. The average TDC is calculated using the share of total unadjusted allocation for each tribal area as a weight.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

101

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

every $100 in IHBG funds they received

Section 184 loan guarantees and grants to

(third column on the table). What are the

cover drug elimination activities.

sources of this additional $21.65?

The next largest item is NAHASDA Program

The largest component ($9.46 or 44

Income ($5.26 per $100 of IHBG grants).

percent) came from additional resources

This is made up of funds the grantees

received directly from HUD. Most

receive related to their operations of

prominent among these is the Indian

programs under NAHASDA, such as

Community Development Block Grant

rents received from tenants in NAHASDA

(ICDBG—$6.49), but the category also

supported housing.46 The grantees also gain

includes amounts for the Title VI and

some other resources from their continued

46  The categories of Program Income include income from fees for services, income from the use/rental of property, funds from the sale of units developed with HUD assistance, sale of equipment, loan principal and interest, sale of loans or obligations, investment income, and income from funds pending use.

Exhibit 3.22 - NAHASDA Funding by Source, Through 2013

Total awarded ($ mil .)

Percent

$ per $100 of IHBG

Total

9,021.7

100.0

121.65

NAHASDA Block Grant (IHBG)

7,416.1

82.2

100.00

Other HUD Direct

701.9

7.8

9.46

Indian Comm. Development Block

481.5

5.3

6.49

Grant

NAHASDA Title VI (Federal

182.7

2.0

2.46

Guarantee)

Section 184 Loan Guarantee

8.2

0.1

0.11

Drug Elimination

6.8

0.1

0.09

Prior year funds and other

22.6

0.3

0.30

NAHASDA Program Income

390.4

4.3

5.26

1937 Act & Other  Existing Prog.

219.1

2.4

2.95

Resources

Other Federal or State Resources

128.3

1.4

1.73

Private Resources and Other

156.3

1.7

2.11

Tribe

25.3

0.3

0.34

Financial Institution

14.2

0.2

0.19

Other

116.8

1.3

1.58

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

Note: Universe includes all grants whether they were open or closed based on their most recent APR.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

102

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

operation of 1937 Act and other existing

sector investment, but also investment

programs, adding another $2.95.

made by the tribes themselves from their

own resources ($0.34).

The remaining sources account for

comparatively small shares. The grantees

Expenditures (Uses of Funds)

received only $1.73 (per $100 of IHBG

Exhibit 3.23 shows all IHBG expenditures

grants) from other federal and state

reported by the grantees from FY 2003

programs. Finally, they received $2.11 from

through FY 2014, broken down by

all other sources. This includes private-

NAHASDA program activity categories

Exhibit 3.23 - IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014

Expenditures, ($ mill.)

Total

Ave/yr.

Percent

Total

7,789

649.0

100

Housing Assistance (FCAS)

2,856

238.0

37

Modernization 1937 Act Housing

1,013

84.5

13

Operation 1937 Act Housing

1,842

153.5

24

Housing Development (Rental)

759

63.3

10

Acquisiition

82

6.8

1

Construction

547

45.6

7

Rehabilitation

117

9.7

1

Other

14

1.1

0

Housing Development (Homeowner)

1,898

158.2

24

Acquisition of units and land

264

22.0

3

Construction

1,081

90.1

14

Rehabilitation

514

42.8

7

Other

39

3.3

1

Housing Services

470

39.2

6

Housing Management Services

457

38.1

6

Crime Prevention & Safety

156

13.0

2

Model Activities

142

11.8

2

Reserve Accounts

10

0.8

0

Planning & Administration

1,040

86.6

13

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

103

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

defined earlier in this section.47 Total

Have any important changes occurred in

expenditures during this period amounted

the composition of these expenditures over

to $7.8 billion, or an average of $649

time? The analysis in exhibit 3.24 responds

million per year.

to this question. Because of the way the

data are reported by the tribes in their

The largest individual category by far

APRs, it is to be expected that substantial

was FCAS Housing Assistance, covering

variations will occur year to year. One

the costs of the continued operation

can make more meaningful comparisons

and modernizing of the housing stock

by averaging expenses during multiyear

built under the pre-NAHASDA 1937 Act

periods. The table shows expenditures for

programs. The amount for this category

one 5-year period (1998 to 2002) and three

was $238 million annually, 37 percent of

4-year periods (2003 to 2006, 2007 to

the total; almost two-thirds of this went for

2010, and 2011 to 2014).

operations, the rest for modernization.

The top panel on the table shows the

Subtracting expenditures relating to

percentage distribution of expenditures

reserves and planning and administration

by category in each period. APR data are

(bottom of the table) means that $324

not available for the 1998-to-2002 period,

mil ion per year had been spent directly to

but percentages for those years can be

cover the newer activities originated under

reported because ACKCO, Inc., and Abt

NAHASDA itself. The largest component

Associates Inc. made estimates for them

of this was Housing Development, with an

in an earlier assessment of the program

annual total of $222 mil ion (34 percent of

(Van Otten et al., 2009). First, the share

the grand total), including $63 mil ion (10

devoted to operating and modernizing the

percent) for rental units and $158 mil ion (24

1937 Act stock (Housing Assistance, FCAS)

percent) for homeownership units. Within

increased from 33 percent in the first period

both of these categories, most of the outlays

to 36 percent in the second, but it has since

were for new construction (57 percent in the

leveled off (36-to-38-percent range). The

homeownership program), rather than the

share spent on Planning and Administration

acquisition or rehabilitation of existing units.

has increased regularly, from 10 percent in

the first period to 15 percent in the last.

In the remaining accounts, 6 percent of the

grand total was spent on Housing Services,

The percentages spent on the remaining

6 percent on Housing Management Services,

smaller categories have also gone up

2 percent on Crime Prevention and Safety,

(Housing Services, Housing Management

and 2 percent on Model Activities. The

Services, Crime Prevention and Safety, and

amounts set aside in reserve accounts

Model Activities), together accounting for

amounted to less than 1 percent of the

13 percent in the first period, going up to 19

grand total. Expenditures for Planning and

percent in the last period. The implication

Administration amounted to $87 mil ion per

of the numbers noted previously is that the

year, representing 13 percent of the grand

share devoted to the remaining activity,

total. It is noteworthy that this share is

NAHASDA Housing Development, has had

considerably less than the 20 percent that is

to decrease, and by a sizeable amount. The

allowable for these purposes.

share for both subcategories (rental plus

homeowner development) dropped from 44

47  These expenditures are of IHGB funds only (that is, they do not include expenditures from other NAHASDA-related resources reported in exhibit 3.22). Complete records on expenditures for the early years of the program (1998 to 2002) are not available (although rough estimates have been made and are discussed further in later sections).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

104

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

percent in the 1998-to-2002 period, to 30

On the other hand, the per-unit cost of

percent in the 2011-to-2014 period, a decline

managing and modernizing this stock has

of 14 percentage points.

gone up. The effect was that average annual

expenditures for this function decreased

The lower panel on the table explores these

in nominal terms, from $268 mil ion in the

changes in dollar terms. The situation in

2003-to-2006 to $222 mil ion in the 2011-to-

the Housing Assistance (FCAS) category

2014 period (not shown on the exhibit), but

is complicated. On one hand, the number

inflation has been important here. The real

of units in this 1937 Act housing stock has

expenditure on this function (in constant

been declining (as would be expected with

1998 dollars as shown on the bottom panel)

the aging of the stock and the conveyance

declined by much more proportional y, from

of Mutual Help units to their occupants).48

$227 mil ion per year in the 2003-to-2006

48  Numbers on the decline of this stock will be presented in the first part of the next section.

Exhibit 3.24 - Analysis of IHBG Program Expenditures, 2003-2014

1998-02

2003-06

2007-10

2011-14

Percent of total expenditures

Total

100

100

100

100

Housing Assistance (FCAS)

33

36

38

37

Housing Development (Rental

14

10

10

9

Housing Development (Homeowner)

30

28

23

21

Housing Services

5

5

7

7

Housing Management Services

6

6

5

7

Crime Prevention & Safety

1

2

2

3

Model Activities

2

2

2

2

Reserve Accounts

-

0

0

0

Planning & Administration

10

12

14

15

Ave. Expenditures/Year ($ millions, constant 1998 $)

Total

NA

636

447

429

Housing Assistance (FCAS)

NA

227

170

157

Housing Development (Rental

NA

65

44

38

Housing Development (Homeowner)

NA

179

104

90

Housing Services

NA

31

30

30

Housing Management Services

NA

39

21

29

Crime Prevention & Safety

NA

10

7

13

Model Activities

NA

11

8

8

Reserve Accounts

NA

1

1

0

Planning & Administration

NA

74

62

64

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

105

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

period to $157 mil ion annual y in the 2011-to-

3.3. The Assisted Housing Stock

2014 period, a drop of 31 percent. Thus, even

This section examines the outputs of the

though expenses for these activities have

grants and other assistance provided under

increased markedly as a share of all IHGB-

NAHASDA to improve housing conditions in

related outlays, the real amounts being

AIAN tribal areas, that is, the results yielded

spent on them have decreased.

by the flows of NAHASDA funding reviewed

The absolute amounts spent for Planning

in the last section.

and Administration increased between the

The analysis begins by looking at the

2003-to-2006 and 2011-to-2014 periods

housing stock that was produced under the

nominally, from an average of $84 to $91

1937 Act programs (FCAS units), and how it

million per year. These costs, however,

has changed during the 17 years since IHBG

have also declined in real dollars between

funds began to flow (from 1998 to 2014). It

these periods, from $74 to $64 million per

then looks at the new housing investments

year in constant 1998 dollars. Many of the

that have been made under NAHASDA

costs in this category are relatively fixed,

during this period, new construction and

so it is not surprising their total did not

the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing

decline more in proportion to overall real

housing. The next subsection puts these

declines in program size.

two strands together and quantifies the

The other smaller categories have also

total IHBG-assisted housing stock in Indian

declined in constant 1998 dollars, from 91

Country as it existed in 2014. Following

mil ion per year in the 2003-to-2006 period

that, this section reviews data provided

down to 80 mil ion per year in the 2011-to-

by the tribes in their APRs on the physical

2014 period (Housing Services, Housing

condition of that stock.

Management Services, Crime Prevention and

In considering the implications of these

Safety and Model Activities).

numbers, it is important to remember that

The declines noted so far, however, have

these “products” can be quite different

been comparatively modest. Again, the

from each other. Under the 1937 Act,

implication is most serious for Housing

it was expected that the owners of the

Development. Taking the two development

assisted units (now the tribal governments

categories together (rental plus

or TDHEs or other institutions controlled

homeownership), expenditures dropped in

by them) would continue to operate and

nominal dollars from $287 mil ion per year

maintain them until the end of their useful

in the 2003-to-2006 period to $182 mil ion

lives (or until their titles were transferred

annual y in the 2011-to-2014 period. The

to new owners). New units produced

decline between these periods, however,

under NAHASDA do not necessarily offer

was truly dramatic in constant 1998

that expectation. Many of them do, but

dollars—from $244 mil ion per year to $128

the choice now depends on the tribe’s

mil ion, a decline of 48 percent. Thus, in

programmatic strategy.

real terms, the average amount of funding

The last part of this section reviews what the

available to be spent on NAHASDA housing

survey findings say about the HUD-assisted

development each year in the 2011-to-2014

housing stock in tribal areas. This covers

period was only about one-half of what it

the views and insights of tribal housing

had been in the 2003-to-2006 period.

officials (tribal/TDHE survey) and of tribal

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

106

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

area residents (household survey—both the

of 42 percent of all eligible households

families who live in HUD housing units and

living in tribal areas at that time. During

other residents of these areas).

the subsequent 7 years, they continued to

expand that stock until 1998, the year when

Change in the FCAS (1937 Act)

production under NAHASDA began. In that

Housing Stock

year, total remaining 1937 Act (Formula

Current Assisted Stock—FCAS) units stood

As noted in section 3.2, HUD and the IHAs

at 71,144, which was 7 percent more than the

built a substantial housing stock in tribal areas

1990 total. In the next few years, a few more

under the first three decades of the 1937 Act

units in the pipeline were completed, raising

programs. By 1990, 67,400 units were under

the total slightly to 71,980 in 2003.

management in Indian Country, the equivalent

Homes being built by the Choctaw Nation in Durant, Oklahoma using green building standards and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Image courtesy Southern Plains Office of Native American Programs staff.

Homes built by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in Washington state using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

107

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

After that, however, because funding for

been substantial, from 71,980 units in 2003,

new units was not provided under these

to 48,756 in 2014—a decline of 2,111 units per

programs after 1998, this total could only

year, on average, 32 percent overal .

decline, and that is indeed what has occurred.

Exhibit 3.32 shows the composition of

As housing stock ages, it is inevitable that

these declines by program component and

some units will deteriorate and ultimately

by region. Almost all the FCAS units are

be demolished. ONAP staff thinks, however,

the products of the two main assistance

that very few assisted units in tribal areas

programs in Indian Country: (1) the low-rent

have been removed from the stock in this

and (2) Mutual Help programs. The table

way. If units are well maintained, and in some

shows a small “other” category involving

cases rehabilitated along the way, they can

other forms of assistance that are included

be kept alive for a very long period of time.

in the formula calculations.49 All these other

Units can also be lost from the assisted

forms of assistance are being phased out

stock because of a change in ownership,

and, together, they are too small to influence

and this factor is highly relevant here. For

the findings and conclusions reported in

Mutual Help units, transferring ownership to

later sections of this report.

the residents (conveyances) after they have

built up sufficient equity during the years, is

The most striking finding to be drawn from

central to the program’s design. As shown

exhibit 3.32 is that almost all the losses

in exhibit 3.31, the declines in FCAS have

occurred in the Mutual Help stock, a drop

49  These other forms of assistance include Turnkey III (a lease-purchase type of program authorized by administrative action in the 1970s; see Kingsley et al., 1996), Section 8 assistance (provided to households living in private rentals—like the housing voucher program), and units

“in development” (in projects supported under the main programs that have never been formally completed so remain on the books).

Exhibit 3.31 - Change in the F

Exhibit 3.31 - Change in the F CAS (19

CAS (193 37 Ac

7 Ac t) Housing St

t) Housing Stock ock

80

70 72.0

)

69.3

67.3

60

65.2

63.6

61.1

58.3

56.2

55.7

50

52.5

50.6

48.8

40

30

20

Housing Units (in thousands

10

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fiscal Years

Source: FCAS Formula data files

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

108

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

of 60 percent from 2003 to 2014 (from

commitment of ongoing federal operating

31,469 units to only 13,803 units). Although

support, this may be the least expensive

the reasons for these losses are mixed,

way to provide continued affordable

ONAP staff indicate that the bulk of the

housing in Indian Country.

decline is explained by conveyances to

Among regions in 2014, the Plains had the

residents consistent with rules built into the

largest share of the FCAS stock (12,308

program’s structure.

units or 25 percent), followed by Arizona/

The complementary result is also striking.

New Mexico (21 percent) and Oklahoma

The stock in the low-rent program hardly

(18 percent). At the other extreme, South

declined at all during this 11-year period, by

Central region had only 299 units (less than 1

only 1 percent, from 31,469 units in 2003

percent) followed by the Eastern (5 percent)

to 31,000 in 2014. Through maintenance

and California/Nevada (6 percent) regions.

and modernization, the tribes/TDHEs

Declines in the FCAS stock from 2003 to

have been able to keep almost all these

2014 ranged from 42 percent in the Eastern

rental units in operation. They have strong

region to 21 percent in the North Central.

incentives to keep these units adequately

The North Central was the only region with

maintained and occupied since, given the

Exhibit 3.32 - FCAS Housing Units 2014 and 2003-2014 Change, by Region

North

South

Arizona

Calif.-

Pacific

US Total

Central

Eastern

Oklahoma

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Total units, 2014

Total

48,756

4,573

2,476

8,846

299

12,308

10,448

3,096

3,507

3,203

Low Rent

31,000

3,970

1,482

2,982

172

9,907

7,305

1,946

2,069

1,167

Mutual Help

13,803

518

757

3,139

127

2,075

3,053

1,078

1,116

1,940

Other

3,953

85

237

2,725

-

326

90

72

322

96

Percent of total

units, 2014

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Low Rent

64

87

60

34

58

80

70

63

59

36

Mutual Help

28

11

31

35

42

17

29

35

32

61

Other

8

2

10

31

-

3

1

2

9

3

2003-2014

Pct Change.

Total

(32)

(21)

(42)

(39)

(38)

(22)

(35)

(38)

(29)

(39)

Low Rent

(1)

(1)

(17)

(3)

(8)

(1)

0

4

(0)

(0)

Mutual Help

(60)

(67)

(62)

(61)

(50)

(60)

(63)

(62)

(55)

(50)

Other

(31)

(61)

(53)

(14)

(100)

(43)

(76)

(77)

(20)

(36)

Source: FCAS Formula data files.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

109

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

a sizeable decline in the rental stock (17

were homeownership units. Based on more

percent)—none of the others saw declines

complete information available from their

in low-rent units of more than 8 percent.

survey, Van Otten et al. (2009) characterizes

Across the regions, declines in Mutual Help

production during that period as follows:

housing all fell in the 50-to-67-percent

…it appears that the peak rental

range, mostly due to conveyances as

construction and acquisition occurred

explained previously. By 2014, the share of

in the first 3 years of NAHASDA, and

total FCAS housing accounted for by Mutual

then tribes placed more emphasis

Help ranged from 11 percent (North Central

on homeownership. Homeownership

region) to 61 percent (Alaska).

production appears to have peaked

Housing Production Under NAHASDA

with the 2002 and 2003 grants,

although it remains a sizeable activity

When the tribes took over full responsibility

after this period. Some tribal housing

for their housing strategies under NAHASDA

administrators reported that production

in 1998, new systems, procedures, and

was lower in the earlier years because

habits had to be developed to enable them

it was a new program and it took time

to account for their own performance. Basic

to develop plans and implement new

reporting requirements were established via

programs. Production has gone down

the APR, but it took time before this system

in more recent years because tribes are

was working reliably across all grantees. An

spending an increasing share of IHBG

interim assessment of the IHBG program by

funding on FCAS and NAHASDA rental

ACKCO, Inc., and Abt Associates Inc. in the

units. (Van Otten et al., 2009: 24–25)

late 2000s examined the program records

of a sample of 28 IHBG grantees and was

Exhibit 3.33 shows that output increased

able to use that sample as a basis for

again after 2006. Regular new construction

estimating total national IHBG production

and acquisition added another 17,563 units

for the early years (Van Otten et al., 2009).50

during the next 8 years (2007 to 2014), an

average of 2,195 units per year. Again, the

ONAP considers that the APR system is

majority of these were homeownership

now reporting production numbers reliably

units, 11,269 or 64 percent. It was during

but, even though partial APR data were

this period that ARRA provided its one-

available for the early years, it thinks that

time increment of additional funding for

the estimates in Van Otten et al. (2009)

NAHASDA housing, and that led to the

still represent the most reliable numbers

addition of another 1,954 units.51 Total 2007-

for the 1998-to-2006 period. The summary

to-2014 production then stood at 19,517

in exhibit 3.33 accordingly reports those

units (an average addition of 2,440 units

estimates for the 1998-to-2006 period and

per year). All told, the program had added

APR data for the 2007-to-2014 period.

36,953 housing units in Indian Country via

new construction and acquisition during the

New Construction/Acquisition.  The exhibit

first 17 years under NAHASDA.

shows that 17,436 units were added to the

stock (new construction plus acquisition of

A shift in trends since 2007, however, has

existing units) from 1998 through 2006; an

been important for policy. As noted, the

average of 1,937 units per year. The majority

number of IHBG-funded units added during

of this stock (12,147 units or 70 percent)

50  The sample and the estimating procedures are described in Van Otten et al. (2009: 21–25).

51  Year-by-year breakdowns of ARRA production are not available.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

110

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

the 2007-to-2014 period averaged 2,195

Rehabilitation.  The type of rehabilitation

per year. As shown in exhibit 3.34, however,

accounted for in exhibit 3.34 is “substantial

the rate declined sharply during this period.

rehabilitation”—in HUD parlance, a

New construction and acquisition added

substantial transformation in the quality

2,414 units annual y during the 2007-to-

of a badly deteriorated unit, not just minor

2010 period, but that rate dropped by 18

refurbishment. How should this type of

percent to 1,977 units per year during the

production be valued? Press accounts

next 4 years. A decline was to be expected

normally treat the rehabilitation of a housing

given shifts in funding. As pointed out in

unit as less of a contribution than the

section 3.2, IHGB funds available for housing

construction of a new unit, and rehabilitation

production also declined markedly in real

is indeed generally less costly per unit than

dollars between these two periods.

new construction. The difference in either

quality or cost, however, is not always large.

Tenure proportions also changed between

these periods. Homeownership units

The right measure is not the number of units in

declined as a share of total production as

standard condition that have been produced

the rental share increased (from 33 percent

but, rather, how much the program has added

in the 2007-to-2010 period to 39 percent in

in terms of the number of years of useful life

the 2011-to-2014 period).

of units in standard condition. Substantial

rehabilitation can, and often does, yield as

Exhibit 3.33 - Housing Production Under NAHASDA, 1998-2014

2007-2014

Total

1998-06

Total

2007-10

2011-14

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Regular IHBG

Rental

11,583

5,289

6,294

3,176

3,118

Homeownership

23,416

12,147

11,269

6,481

4,788

Subtotal

34,999

17,436

17,563

9,657

7,906

ARRA

1,954

-

1,954

n.a.

n.a.

Total

36,953

17,436

19,517

n.a.

n.a.

REHABILITATION

Regular IHBG

Rental

n.a.

n.a.

9,267

2,888

6,379

Homeownership

n.a.

n.a.

26,035

13,372

12,663

Subtotal

59,410

24,108

35,302

16,260

19,042

ARRA

13,338

-

13,338

n.a.

n.a.

Total

72,748

24,108

48,640

n.a.

n.a.

Sources:  1998-06 from ACKCO and Abt Associates, 2009, p. 24, and ONAP Performance Tracking Database HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

111

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

many added unit-years of useful life as new

period to 4,761 per year in the 2011-to-2014

construction. The estimates presented here

period, an increase of 17 percent. It appears

assume that the value added by rehabilitation

that tribes cut back the more expensive

per unit is only slightly less, on average, than

construction/acquisition component of their

that yielded by construction and acquisition.52

programs and devoted more resources to

the rehabilitation component.

Exhibit 3.33 shows the number of units

substantial y rehabilitated under NAHASDA

Another interesting shift in this period is a

since the start of the program. This includes

marked increase in the rehabilitation of rental

24,108 units during the 1998-to-2006

(as opposed to homeownership) units (exhibit

period (Van Otten et al., 2009) and 48,568

3.34). Rental rehabilitation production

during the 2007-to-2014 period (including

more than doubled from 722 units annually

13,338 that were ARRA funded). The total

during the 2007-to-2010 period to 1,595

is 72,676 units, almost exactly twice the

units per year during the 2011-to-2014

number of units added under construction/

period. The rental share of the rehabilitation

acquisition. Of the 35,302 units rehabilitated

pipeline went up from 18 percent in the

in the 2007-to-2014 period, 74 percent were

first of these periods to 34 percent in the

homeownership units.53

second, and the homeownership share

declined proportionately.

Important shifts occurred in the rehabilitation

program after 2006 (exhibit 3.34). Production

Cumulative Assistance as of 2010

volumes under the construction/acquisition

and 2014

component declined in the face of shrinking

program resources, but rehabilitation

Exhibit 3.35 presents data on the

volumes increased. Units rehabilitated went

cumulative number of assisted units in

up from 4,065 per year in the 2007-to-2010

tribal areas in 2010 and in 2014. Some of

52  The data needed to support reliable estimates of unit-years of useful life added by each of these two types of production streams are not available.

53  These are units occupied by households transitioning to homeownership, such as mutual help homes.

Exhibit 3.34 - IHBG Funded Housing Production, 2007-2014

Units per Year

Percent of Total

2007-14

2007-10

2011-14

2007-14

2007-10

2011-14

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Rental

787

794

780

36

33

39

Homeownership

1,409

1,620

1,197

64

67

61

Total

2,195

2,414

1,977

100

100

100

REHABILITATION

Rental

1,158

722

1,595

26

18

33

Homeownership

3,254

3,343

3,166

74

82

66

Total

4,413

4,065

4,761

100

100

100

Source:  ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

112

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

these units are more deeply subsidized

Accurate totals are available for FCAS units

than others because of the variety

that existed in each of these years because

of forms of housing assistance used,

HUD requires the tribes to keep track of

particularly under NAHASDA. Nonetheless,

units that are demolished or otherwise

it is useful to estimate the quantity of

removed from that stock. The analysis

housing that has been produced, and for

suggests, however, that removals from

this purpose, counting the number of units

NAHASDA-produced stock are likely to be

added to the assisted housing inventory is

negligible to this point (see the text box,

a reasonable approach.

Why Removals From the NAHASDA Housing

Stock Are Likely To Be Negligible).

Why Removals From the NAHASDA Housing Stock Are Likely To Be Negligible

In efforts to account for change in a housing inventory, it is almost always prohibitively

expensive to record removals (demolitions, changes in use, and so on) as they occur. Removals accordingly usual y have to be estimated. The method the U.S. Census Bureau uses to estimate removals for its annual estimates of the U.S. housing stock is ful y documented by the Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b). The most critical element relies on nationwide measures of actual losses during 2-year intervals by age cohort obtained via analysis of American

Housing Survey (AHS) data (the most recent analysis for the 2009-to-2011 period is presented and explained in Eggers and Moumen [2015]).

As would be expected, annual loss rates are very small for housing built recently and get larger for older age cohorts. The annual loss rates derived from the AHS analysis that the Census Bureau applied in its 2014 estimates were 0.03 percent for units in structures built from 1990 to 1999, 0.06 percent for those built from 1980 to 1989, and 0.17 percent for those built between 1970 and 1979, and a much larger 0.38 percent for those built between 1940 and 1949. For example, to estimate the number of units remaining in the 1990-to-1999 cohort as of 2014, the Census Bureau started with the number of units in that cohort as of the 2010 census and then applied the 0.03

percent annual loss rate during 4 years. The losses of units built after 1999 in the AHS analysis were so small that the Census Bureau assumes a removal rate of zero for that cohort.

Applying the Census Bureau method to Native American Housing Assistance and Self-

Determination Act (NAHASDA) production, removals would be very close to zero, because the

vast majority of NAHASDA production has occurred since 1999. As an alternative, the Census

Bureau approach can be applied, but in a more conservative manner that does not apply only

one rate of removal but assumes that the rate of removal for housing units built in a given period will increase over time. In particular, (1) for NAHASDA units produced from 1998 to 2006, assume annual removal rates of zero during the 1998-to-2006 period, 0.03 percent during the 2007-to-2010 period, and 0.06 percent during the 2011-to-2014 period; (2) for units produced from 2007

to 2010, assume annual rates of zero during the 2007-to-2010 period and 0.03 percent during the 2010-to-2014 period; (3) for units produced after 2010, assume zero losses by 2014. Even this approach yields total removals of only 181 NAHASDA-produced units by 2014, or 0.17 percent of the total produced by then. This analysis suggests that removals from NAHASDA-produced units to this point are likely to be so small that a formal estimate is not warranted.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

113

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

As shown in exhibit 3.35, cumulative

peaked at around 82,500 units in 1998,

assistance through 2010 amounted to

after 30 years of activity. Under NAHASDA,

124,300 units. The majority of these

the estimates presented indicate that the

(68,100 or 55 percent) had been produced

cumulative number of assisted units grew to

under NAHASDA, with the rest made up of

1.5 times that number by 2010, and to 1.9 times

units in the FCAS inventory. Of the total,

that number in 2014, 17 years after NAHASDA

83,900 (66 percent) were construction

production began. In terms of units added per

or acquisition units and the rest (40,300)

year, in the period just before NAHASDA (from

were rehabilitation units.

1990 to 1998), around 1,800 units per year

were added to the 1937 Act inventory. The

By 2014, 4 years later, these estimates indicate

first 17 years under NAHASDA yielded annual

that the total had grown to 158,100 units—an

averages of 2,200 construction or acquisition

increase of 27 percent. The NAHASDA share

units and 4,300 rehabilitation units. As noted,

had increased to 69 percent (109,300 units)

these numbers are not strictly comparable, but

as the FCAS inventory continued to decline.

they leave no doubt that the rate of assisted

The construction/acquisition share had

housing production under NAHASDA so far

dropped to 54 percent because rehabilitation

has matched or exceeded that of the decade

units accounted for a larger percentage of

that preceded it. This is an important finding,

output during those years.

because a major concern about the feasibility

of NAHASDA before its enactment, was

This record marks a substantial increase in

whether the tribes would be able to produce

assisted housing in Indian Country since

as much as the more professionalized IHA/

NAHASDA started production in 1998. The

HUD system had done earlier.

total number of 1937 Act units in tribal areas

Exhibit 3.35 - Cumulative Assisted Units, 2010 and 2014

2010

2014

Housing Units

Pct. Of Grand Total

Housing Units

Pct. Of Grand Total

GRAND TOTAL

Construction/Acquisition

83,278

67

85,709

54

Rehabilitation

40,368

33

72,748

46

Total

123,646

100

158,457

100

FCAS INVENTORY

Low Rent

31,200

25

31,000

20

Mutual Help & Other

24,985

20

17,756

11

Total

56,185

45

48,756

31

NAHASDA INVENTORY

Construction/Acquisition

27,093

22

36,953

23

Rehabilitation

40,368

33

72,748

46

Total

67,461

55

109,701

69

Sources:  Exhibits 3.32 and 3.33

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

114

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Grantee Reports on Housing Stock

over time or location. Third, for the previously

discussed reasons, ONAP does not use this

Quality

table 3 data actively in program management.

In table 3 of the APR, HUD asks that IHBG

Nonetheless, it should be useful to look

grantees submit data on the number of units

at these data to get a rough sense of how

in their inventories (by program type), the

tribal housing staffs view the quality of

number of those that have been inspected

their assisted housing stocks. Data come

and, among those, the numbers that are in

from a special run of APR table 3 data

standard condition, or alternatively, need to

in ONAP’s PTD as of the end of FY 2012

be replaced or rehabilitated.

(exhibits 3.36 and 3.37). Exhibit 3.36

These reports face three types of problems.

presents the information by program

First, as noted, tribal housing staffs do

types. Data in this file cover 59,300 FCAS

not maintain ongoing control over al

units,54 of which all but 2 percent were

their NAHASDA units after they are built

in the low-rent program (59 percent) or

as they did for FCAS units. Therefore,

Mutual Help (39 percent). The share of

many NAHASDA-produced units are not

all units reported as being inspected was

subsequently subject to inspection by those

fairly high, 81 percent overall, with a higher

grantees. Second, the method used to rate the

inspection rate for the low-rent program

quality of units does not follow an “objective

than for the Mutual Help program.

observation” approach like that used in the

The tribes had rated 73 percent of the

AHS (explained in part 2), so the ratings

FCAS units overall as being in standard

cannot be expected to be reliably comparable

54  Only 52,000 units actually were still in the official FCAS inventory at that point, so this file must include table 3 records for some units that had been phased out at that point.

Exhibit 3.36 - Grantee Reported Condition of HUD Assisted Housing, 2012

Percent of inspected units by condition

Need rehabilitation

Percent of Units

Percent Inspected

Total

Standard condition

<$20K

>$20K

Need replace.

FCAS (1937 Act) units

100

81

100

70

19

10

2

Mutualhelp

39

73

100

75

17

8

1

Low rent

59

89

100

66

21

11

2

Turnkey & other

2

26

100

87

6

6

1

NAHASDA funded units

100

85

100

90

7

2

1

Recipient owned/manag.

13

62

100

80

18

2

0

Homeownership

44

85

100

91

5

3

1

Rental

32

90

100

91

7

2

0

Temporary housing

1

71

100

76

22

2

-

Other

11

98

100

91

6

3

0

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

115

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Exhibit 3.37 - Condition of FCAS (1937 Act) Housing by Region, 2012

United

North

Okla-

South

Arizona

Calif.-

Pacific

States

Central

Eastern

homa

Central

Plains

N.Mexico

Nevada

Northwest

Alaska

Percent of total units

100.0

8.1

5.2

14.8

1.0

16.1

32.9

7.0

7.8

7.0

Percent of units inspected

81

85

87

79

95

69

84

95

89

87

Percent of units by condition

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

In standard condition

70

73

82

68

86

64

77

74

82

78

Less than standard condition

29

32

22

31

14

36

24

26

18

23

Needing rehab. (<$20K)

19

23

15

27

11

21

10

19

14

14

Needing rehab. (>$20K)

10

9

6

3

3

14

11

6

4

9

Needing replacement

2

0

0

1

-

1

3

1

0

0

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD).

condition. A larger share of the Mutual

share of units rated as being in standard

Help units was in standard condition (75

condition is higher, 90 percent overall. Only

percent) than were the rental units (66

the “temporary housing” component of

percent). It is somewhat surprising that

this stock has a much lower share rated as

the tribes stated that only 2 percent of

standard (71 percent). The tribes indicate

these units needed to be replaced (the

that only 1 percent of these units need to

rest could be brought up to standard

be replaced, and 2 percent more need

through rehabilitation).

rehabilitation costing more than $20,000.

Data in this file cover only 15,500

Exhibit 3.37 shows APR data on the

NAHASDA units as of the end of FY

condition of the FCAS portion of the

2012, which is only about one-half of

inventory by region. The patterns are

all NAHASDA construction/acquisition

similar, but the extent of variation is not

units that existed at that point. It is likely

trivial. The share of units that had been

that these are the units under programs

inspected ranges from a low of 69 percent

structured such that the tribes retain some

(Plains) to a high of 95 percent (South-

ongoing management and/or assistance

Central and California/Nevada). The region

responsibilities. The APRs indicate that

with the lowest share of units in standard

85 percent of these units had been

condition was the Plains (64 percent),

inspected. Inspection rates were highest

followed by Oklahoma (68 percent)

for units produced under tribal rental and

and North Central (73 percent). The

homeownership programs (85-90 percent)

region with the highest share in standard

and lowest for units that were owned and

condition was South Central (86 percent),

managed by recipients (62 percent).

followed by Eastern and Pacific Northwest

(both at 82 percent).

As would be expected, because all of this

housing is newer than the FCAS stock, the

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

116

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

3.4. Administration of the IHBG Grant

2014, 585 tribes or tribal organizations were

eligible to receive IHBG funds; 32 of these

This section of the report reviews the

tribes chose not to participate (HUD/ONAP,

types of organizations that have evolved

2015). ONAP received 363 compliant Indian

in tribal areas to administer the IHBG. It

Housing Plans (IHP) representing 553

examines their size and stability, contractual

tribes (exhibit 3.41).

relationships and partnerships with other

organizations, and staff priorities for

After NAHASDA was enacted, tribes

organizational improvements. Findings draw

had to choose who would apply for and

predominantly from the tribal/TDHE survey

administer IHBG funds for them (Section

data and data from site visit respondents.

IV of the statute). They could decide to

administer the program themselves through

Grantee Types and Evolution in the

a unit of tribal government, or they could

Administration of the IHBG Program

choose to have some other organization

administer the program on their behalf.

Before passage of NAHASDA, IHAs

All such organizations in the latter case

developed and managed assisted

are termed TDHEs. In many instances the

housing units according to ordinances

old IHAs were designated to serve as the

that had to be federal y approved. After

TDHE under NAHASDA, but other outside

passage of NAHASDA, which provided

organizations (for example, other nonprofit

local decisionmaking and priority-setting

organizations) could be designated to take

authority to tribes, the organizational

on this work. In all cases, the designation

landscape began to change significantly.

of administrative responsibility had to be

certified in the IHP submission.

In the mid-1990s, before NAHASDA was

enacted, 187 IHAs represented 267 American

A majority of the 110 respondents (58

Indian tribes and 200 Alaska Native

percent) from the national y representative

vil ages—a total of 467 tribal areas (Kingsley

tribal/TDHE survey said their organization

et al., 1996). The number of tribes receiving

was a TDHE separate from the tribal

housing assistance grants has grown

government and 41 percent identified as an

substantial y since then, as has the number

office of the tribal government.

of entities administering the program. In FY

Exhibit 3.41 - IHBG Grantees and Tribal Beneficiaries, FY 2014

ONAP Regions

Eligible Participants

Actual Recipients

Fund Assignments ($ mil.)

Alaska (Anchorage)

237

55

99.24

Eastern/Woodlands (Chicago)

62

56

90.95

Northern Plains (Denver)

32

34

177.69

Northwest (Seattle)

42

42

54.48

Southern Plains (Oklahoma City)

47

47

96.37

Southwest (Phoenix)

165

129

123.77

All Areas

585

363

646.52

Source: ONAP Performance Tracking Database (PTD)

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

117

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Data from the tribal/TDHE survey and

TDHE. Interview respondents at the Lummi

the site visit interviews shed light on

Nation said they think this change led to

changes in the organizational structure

improved administration because funds are

of program administration. Three-

guided by one consolidated plan, which was

fourths of survey respondents said their

not the case under tribal administration.

organization had always administered IHBG

At the Lumbee Tribe, the tribal council

for their respective reservation.55 Among

administers the NAHASDA budget and

respondents whose organization was

directs the use of funds run through the

distinct from the tribal government, the vast

housing department. Based on comments

majority (95.5 percent) said that they were

from site visit respondents, it appears that

or previously had been an IHA.56

this structure has led to decisions that

Site visit respondents talking about the

differed from those the housing department

evolution of IHBG program administration

would have made were they to set priorities

provided examples of the diversity in

on the use of grant funds. According to

organizational structure and changes over

respondents, the council prefers to direct

time. For example, in the Zuni Tribe, housing

funds to housing rehabilitation because such

administration was based in a TDHE until

work benefits more people, whereas the

2004, when administrative responsibility was

housing department would prefer to direct

assumed by the tribe. Three years later, the

funds to homeownership efforts.

tribe designated the Zuni Housing Authority

By and large, IHBG administrative entities

as the TDHE, which has administered

manage the program solely for their own

the IHBG program since 2007. A site visit

tribal area. ONAP Performance Tracking

respondent said that because administration

data for 2003–2014 show only 8 regional

was shifted back to a TDHE from a tribal

corporations, though it is possible that

department, activities were better coordinated

at least some of the other grantee types

across housing programs and there was

administered the IHBG program for more

more funding. Seven housing departments

than one tribal area. The tribal/TDHE survey

administered the IHBG grant program in

found that only 3 percent of respondents, a

Cherokee Nation before those departments

total of 9, said their organization administers

were consolidated into one department. A

IHBG for tribal areas in addition to their own.

site visit respondent said the consolidation

These respondents’ organizations administer

improved administrative performance by

the program for a total of 166 other tribal

reducing redundancy and clearly identifying

areas. Two respondents said they administer

responsibility for particular tasks. The housing

IHBG grants for 49 other tribal areas; others

department did not administer all NAHASDA

said they administer the grants for from 1 to

funds, however; administration was split

29 areas. Together these data suggest that

between the housing department, which

more tribes are administering the program

reports to its board of commissioners, and

themselves or designating it to a local entity

the community services department, which

than what appears to have been the case in

reports to the tribal chief of staff. The Lummi

the mid-1990s.57

Nation transferred IHBG administration to a

55  An organization could have administered the grant as one grantee type, such as an IHA, and then been designated as the TDHE after NAHASDA was passed.

56  Respondents were asked whether their organization currently was or ever had been considered an IHA; data do not specify the percent of respondents who had been but no longer were an IHA.

57  Kingsley et al. (1996) reported that 187 IHAs represented approximately 467 American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages, as noted, but, because the report does not specify the percent of the IHAs that administered housing programs for other tribes or villages, it is not possible to compare data directly.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

118

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

NAHASDA increased opportunities for

in the previous 3 years (63 percent)

self-determination and the work that

but 28 percent said they have had two

comes with such opportunities. Tribal/

directors in that time. Fewer turnovers have

TDHE survey respondents familiar with how

occurred in directors among TDHEs. A

HUD housing assistance was administered

higher percentage of respondents from

before the start of block grants in 1998

TDHEs said they’ve had only one director

said that the block grants require more

in 3 years (77 percent) compared with

work. Of those respondents able to draw

respondents from tribal housing authorities

a comparison, 57 percent said current

(44 percent). Overall, 10 percent of

administrative procedures under the IHBG

respondents said their organization has had

program required more work than was

three or more executive directors in the

necessary before NAHASDA and the block

past 3 years.

grant program began. About one-fourth of

Of the tribal/TDHE respondents whose

respondents (24 percent) thought the block

organizations had full-time staff, 35 percent

grants required less administrative work.

had 4 to 6 staff, 27 percent had 7 to 10,

Characteristics of the Organizations

and 29 percent had 11 or more. The number

of staff does not track tightly to the size

That Administer the IHBG Program

of an organization’s budget, as one might

A majority of survey respondents (66

expect. One-half of the organizations with

percent) said their organization had its

grants of less than $1 million (51 percent)

own board of directors or commissioners.

had 11 or more staff and only 4 percent of

One-half of respondents (50 percent)

these organizations had 1 to 3 staff. Among

said their organization’s board selected

organizations with grants of $3 million or

the executive director, 33 percent said the

more, 11 percent had 3 or fewer staff and

executive director was selected by the

only 21 percent had 11 or more.

tribal government, and 11 percent said their

Most respondents said that the number of

organization used a formal hiring process,

staff members had stayed the same during

but did not specify what that meant beyond

the past 3 years (60 percent). About the

soliciting applications.

same percent indicated the number of staff

As might be expected, a higher percent of

had increased (21 percent) as said it had

respondents from tribal housing authorities

decreased (19 percent). In addition to the

indicated their director was selected by

retention of staff positions, staff members

the tribal government compared with

have remained on the job. About 68 percent

respondents from TDHEs (39 and 8 percent,

of respondents said that between 75 percent

respectively), whereas considerably more

and 100 percent of ful -time staff had been

TDHE respondents said their director

on staff for 3 or more years. Another 21

was named by the organization’s board

percent of respondents said that 51 to 75

of directors (52 percent compared with 4

percent of their organization’s full-time staff

percent, respectively).

had been on the job for 3 or more years.

Leadership, the number of staff positions,

Slightly less than one-half of the

and staff members have exhibited a

respondents (44 percent) said their

degree of stability for at least 3 years. A

organization did not have part-time staff.

majority of survey respondents said that

Respondents from organizations that

their organization has had one director

did have part-time staff were evenly split

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

119

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

between those who said they had 1 to 10

and 92 percent said they had staff who

part-time staff members (27 percent) and 11

specialized in building maintenance. On

to 100 part-time staff members (28 percent).

the lowest end, 59 percent of respondents

said their organization had information

Site visit respondents from 11 organizations

management and computer systems

did discuss problems with understaffing.

specialists and 63 percent said they

Among these respondents, four said their

had specialists in public relations and

organization has had to reduce the number

communication with the public.

of staff in response to budget cutbacks. Staff

from other organizations discussed staffing

Nearly three-fourths of respondents (73

and funding needs in response to questions

percent) said their organization partners

about organizational improvements.

or collaborates with other agencies or

organizations to provide housing services

Most of the organizations with at least

in conjunction with the use of IHBG

three full-time staff have specialized staff.

funds. Among these organizations that

For example, 93 percent of respondents

partner with other entities, 58 percent

indicated that their organization had staff

partnered with local nonprofit and service-

who specialized in case management with

provider organizations. About one-half

residents, 92 percent said they had staff

of respondents (52 percent) partnered

who specialized in finances and budgets,

Partnering

Partnering to maximize resources. Blackfeet Housing has created relationships with other

programs and funders to work in partnership on some programs. For example, Blackfeet

Housing offers an emergency repair program for elders, veterans, and people who have a

disability. Funds are capped at $500 for each participating household, but respondents say this amount is insufficient to make any substantial repairs. Blackfeet Housing is working with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Home Improvement Program to

pool resources. This partnership would allow for up to $20,000 to be spent on needed repairs.

Partnering to reduce service gaps. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma developed a client-

centered, interagency approach to service delivery that seeks to meet clients’ needs

and reduce any service gaps. The collaboration includes several tribal departments and

programs—housing, community health representatives, community-based home visitors,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, transportation services, domestic violence, Food

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, adult protective services, and emergency

services. This interagency cooperation includes the State of Oklahoma and municipalities

located within the Choctaw Nation service area. This collaborative approach to service

delivery helps to identify clients’ needs and reduce gaps in services.

Partnering to access staff training and funding for energy services. The Tribal Energy

Group of the Bonneville Power Administration partners with a number of local power

companies serving a number of tribes, including Blackfeet, Lummi, Makah, and Yakama. The

Tribal Energy Group supports training and funding for energy audits and weatherization

projects for low-income households.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

120

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

with other tribal programs. Another 25

Contracting can be a sound business

percent partnered with a nontribal local

practice that frees staff to focus on areas

jurisdiction and 20 percent partnered with

of in-house expertise while ensuring all

a local nontribal public housing authority.

work functions are accomplished. Given the

More than two-thirds of respondents

high percent of TDHEs and tribal housing

(68 percent) identified other partners,

authorities that contract out work, it is likely

including state and federal organizations

that some number of tribes and TDHEs

and nonprofit organizations such as Habitat

do so strategical y. Interviews with IHBG

for Humanity. The text box, Partnering,

grant administrators suggest, however, that

provides examples of various partnerships.

contracting decisions in some organizations

are driven by limited organizational

Contracting Out Administrative

capacity or staff capabilities—that some

Functions

administrators contract out work because of

need rather than strategic preference. For

Nearly all survey respondents (92 percent)

example, in Wind River, Eastern Shoshone,

said their organization contracts out for

a staff member said that it is less expensive

a range of administrative and building-

at present to contract out certain tasks

related functions. Among respondents

because staff does not have the necessary

whose organizations contract out services

capabilities to carry out the work. An effort

on a regular basis, more than one-half said

is under way to increase capabilities and

they contract out legal help (92 percent),

productivity so that more work can be done

construction work (67 percent), and

in-house. Staff from the housing authority

information management and computer

in Bad River, which serves as the TDHE,

systems (56 percent). About 43 percent

said that the authority contracts out for a

contract out maintenance services. Nearly

number of services to cover needs that staff

one-third of respondents (30 percent)

could not take on and to gain the expertise

contract out finance and accounting

of specialists. Contracted services have

services; 28 percent of respondents said

included information technology support,

they contract out building management and

auditing, legal assistance, surveying and

operations. Other contracted administrative

architectural services, and maintenance that

and building services included rent

required more than the standard skill set.

collection, human resources services, project

management, and grants consulting.

Priorities for Organizational

Improvements

Survey data show some differences in

contracting practices by type of IHBG

Survey respondents identified the highest

administrator. TDHEs are more likely to

priorities for improving the effectiveness

contract out information management and

of their organization. A plurality identified

computer systems services than are tribal

increased training (48 percent) to address a

housing authorities (77 compared with 27

lack of skil s or work efficiency and to ensure

percent, respectively) whereas TDHEs are

new staff are equipped to carry out their

less likely than tribal authorities to contract

jobs. This response echoes findings from

out construction services (46 compared

a U.S. Government Accountability (GAO)

with 96 percent, respectively), though nearly

study that reported limited administrative

one-half of them do contract out for such

capacity was a commonly cited problem

services. Differences based on grant size

(GAO, 2014). Respondents also called for

were not as stark.

increased funding (42 percent).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

121

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

All respondents were asked about the

information management and computer

types of training staff would like to

systems compared with 3 percent of TDHEs.

receive. Training needs mentioned most

TDHE respondents gave higher priority to

frequently included building maintenance

public relations and communications training

(26 percent), administrative tasks (20

than did respondents from tribal housing

percent), information and computer systems

authorities, 13 percent compared with 2

(12 percent) and case management with

percent; and 33 percent of TDHEs cited

residents (10 percent). Other topics cited by

building maintenance compared with 16

at least 5 percent of respondents included

percent of housing authorities.

public relations and communications,

Site visit respondents identified similar

finances and budgeting, and construction

training needs and were able to offer more

and building management.

detailed examples of what staff need. The

Differences existed in the types of training

variety of training needs they identified can

that survey respondents from tribal housing

be clustered into six groups, divided by type

authorities and those from TDHEs identified.

of staff and topics, as shown in exhibit 3.42.

Among tribal housing authorities, 37 percent

Interview respondents from many sites

said staff needed training in administrative

said they take advantage of trainings to

tasks compared with 8 percent of TDHE

the extent possible, but costs for offsite

respondents; and 25 percent cited

Exhibit 3.42 -Training Needs

Leadership

Specializations

Management training for supervisors

Housing counselor certification

How to find other funding

Credit counseling

Public relations campaigns/events

Communications / public relations

Front-line Staff

Maintenance

HUD requirements and NAHASDA

Maintenance training for staff without construction backgrounds

Occupancy, collections, inspections, and supervisor training

Additional maintenance training

Procurement

Specialty training for maintenance staff

Updates on new processes and procedures

Safety (fire drills, fire extinguishers, OSHA, first aid, CPR)

Energy / environmental

General

Additional training on geothermal units

Refresher trainings for experienced staff

Energy audits

Professional development for staff with no workforce experience

Additional training on energy efficiency

LEED certification

Environmental review training

Source: Site Visit Interviews, 2013-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

122

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

trainings, especial y travel costs, are a

and the director has little time to spend

hindrance to getting the training that staff

on efforts to leverage funds. In Gila River

need and to maintaining staff certifications.

Indian Community, low funding has led to

Another barrier is finding the time to take off

insufficient staffing, which impedes their

from work without creating staff coverage

ability to complete construction projects

problems. A number of respondents who

on time. The respondent also said the

cited cost challenges identified approaches

organization has not been able to purchase

they have taken to meet at least some

equipment needed for building and

training needs, such as inviting trainers to

demolishing housing.

offer onsite sessions; coordinating with

Respondents from four tribes discussed

nearby tribes to offer regional sessions;

the effects of funding cuts, in particular. A

sending one staff member to an offsite

respondent from Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate

training who then trains other staff after

of the Lake Traverse Reservation, said the

returning; having experienced staff mentor

organization can rehabilitate only one house

newer staff; and making use of various

at a time because budget restrictions led to

media CDs, DVDs, books) and materials

staff layoffs. At the Wind River Reservation,

via the Internet in place of formal training

Eastern Shoshone, budget cuts resulted

sessions. (See text box, Choctaw Nation:

in the layoff of four maintenance workers.

Staff Training and Education)

Other respondents discussed ways in

Beyond staff development and training

which their organizations have weathered

needs, interview respondents identified a

staff layoffs due to budget reductions. A

number of organizational improvements

respondent from Choctaw Nation said the

they would like to realize. Improvements

number of staff positions was reduced from

respondents mentioned related to

162 in 2004 to 98 at the time of the site

organizational/administrative practices

visit. The organization’s ability to continue

(rather than service improvements),

its work was attributed to stability of tribal

and include improving staff capacity

and TDHE governance and staff knowledge

and efficiency and improving electronic

of program policies and procedures. At the

systems, software, and use of technology,

Wind River Reservation, Northern Arapaho,

which would help to improve staff

a respondent said that housing authority

efficiency and organizational practices,

staff that remained after cutbacks in 2003

such as rent collection. Respondents

received training to help them increase

also mentioned interest in improving

their productivity.

communications and coordination with

other tribal services providers.

3.5. Contributions of Other Housing

and Community Development

Interview respondents from seven tribes

Programs

discussed issues of staffing, training needs

and other needed improvements in the

This section of the report focuses on federal

context of budget challenges and the

funding other than the IHBG program for

effects of budget and staff cutbacks on

housing related activities undertaken by

services. Respondents from three tribes

tribes and TDHEs. Findings draw from the

talked about staffing restrictions that

tribal/TDHE survey data and information

result from low funding. For example, the

provided by ONAP.

executive director position of the TDHE

for Chickaloon Native Vil age is part time

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

123

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Choctaw Nation: Staff Training and Education

Site visit respondents described the priority and resources the Choctaw Nation and its

various departments and agencies put toward staff training and education. Some staff are

mandated to attend training sessions, and other staff are encouraged to attend relevant

sessions. Leaders allocate time during the workday for training and ongoing education.

Sessions are offered by the “Choctaw University” and serve staff from across departments

and programs. The sessions focus on inculcating a client-centered work ethos, skill

acquisition, and development of ways to improve work production and results through

col aborative efforts.

Publicly Funded Non-IHBG Housing

must be members of federal y recognized

tribes or Alaska Natives who live in

and Community Development

approved tribal service areas58 and whose

Programs Operating in Indian Country  income does not exceed 150 percent of

Most of the tribal/TDHE survey respondents

the U.S. poverty guidelines. Recipients live

(61 percent) said their organization offers

in substandard housing and must have

only housing assistance programs funded

no other resource for housing assistance.

under the IHBG program. From the 39

Further, criteria stipulate that recipients must

percent of organizations that offer other

not have received assistance since October

programs, survey respondents most often

1, 1986, for home repairs, renovation, or

identified the BIA’s Housing Improvement

replacement or downpayment assistance,

Program and the Low-Income Housing

and did not acquire their current housing

Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program as the largest

through a federal y sponsored housing

programs in their portfolio. Respondents

program that includes such assistance.

mentioned other programs, including HUD’s

The LIHTC was established as part of the

ICDBG program; Weatherization Assistance

U.S. Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Novogradic &

Program funded by states with U.S.

Company, n.d.). LIHTC is an indirect federal

Department of Energy (DOE) resources; and

subsidy intended to incentivize the private

activities funded by ARRA stimulus grants

market to finance the development of

from HUD. Respondents also mentioned

affordable rental housing units. Developers

rental assistance programs funded by the

apply for LIHTC through state housing

tribes and NAHASDA.

agencies, which administer the program in

BIA initiated HIP in 1965 under the

accordance with guidelines set by the IRS.

Snyder Act of 1921 (DOI/BIA, 2015). HIP

If awarded the tax credits, most developers

offers grants to the most disadvantaged

pass the credits along to equity investors,

households for home improvements or

directly or through a syndicator, who realize

replacement. BIA provides HIP funds to

dollar-for-dollar reduction in their federal tax

tribes or to BIA regional housing offices,

liabilities for a 10-year period in exchange

which then review applications and disburse

for project financing. Affordable units built

grants. BIA describes the program as a

or rehabilitated with LIHTC financing must

secondary safety-net to tackle substandard

remain affordable for at least 30 years.

housing and homelessness. Grant recipients

58  An approved tribal service area is a geographical area designated by a tribe and approved by the BIA where HIP services can be delivered.

http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/HousingImprovementProgram/index.htm.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

124

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

The Housing and Community Development

used for acquisition, new construction

Act of 1974 was amended in 1977 to set

or rehabilitation of affordable housing,

aside 1 percent of CDBG appropriations

site improvements and infrastructure

for allocation to American Indian tribes

construction, energy retrofits and healthy

and Alaska Native villages (HUD n.d.).

homes improvements, administration and

ICDBG grants are used for housing,

planning costs, and investments made to

community facilities, and economic

leverage private capital. Funds had to be

purposes. Housing activities may include

spent within 3 years. See section 3.3 for

housing rehabilitation, land acquisition

additional discussion of the ARRA grants

for new construction, and limited new

that went to Indian Country.

construction. Community facilities

activities may include construction of

Housing Provided in Indian Country

community infrastructure and community

by Other Major Housing Programs

buildings. Economic development

Of the tribal/TDHE survey respondents, 17

efforts may be commercial, industrial or

identified HIP as a major housing assistance

agricultural in nature. ICDBG also offers

program they operate. Activities supported

a small number of noncompetitive grants

by HIP include home improvement

to be used to address problems that pose

and housing rehabilitation efforts,

an imminent threat to public health or

homeownership programs, and housing

safety. All activities are meant to support

construction. At the time the survey was

AIAN communities and primarily benefit

conducted, respondents estimated the

low- and moderate-income people.

number of affected units annually to be 0

The program is administered regionally

to 5.59 A couple of respondents commented

through six HUD Area ONAP offices. The

that the number of HIP affected units

offices receive applications from eligible

was very low, with one respondent

tribes and villages through a competitive

wondering whether the small amount

NOFA process.

of HIP funding was worth the effort the

DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program,

program requires. The 14 respondents

which began in 1976, provides grants to

who identified LIHTC as a major program

increase the energy efficiency of low-

their organization operated said their

income households’ homes (DOE/OEERE,

organization uses the LIHTC funds for

n.d.). Grant funds are provided to American

rental and homeownership programs,

Indian tribes, states and territories, which

including rental-housing renovations.

contract with local governments and

At the time of the survey, respondents

nonprofit organizations to provide the

estimated that from 40 to 104 units of

weatherization upgrades.

housing had been affected by LIHTC.

As noted in sections 3.2 and 3.3, as part

Six respondents identified the DOE’s

of ARRA, HUD distributed grants through

Weatherization Assistance Program as a

the Native American Housing Block Grant

major program. Funds from this program

Stimulus Program (HUD, n.d.). Tribes and

were used to renovate owner-occupied

TDHEs’ eligible for funding under NAHASDA

and rental housing. Respondents estimated

could apply to a NOFA to compete

between 25 and 60 units of housing had

for ARRA funds that were obligated in

been affected by this program. Four

September 2009. The grants were to be

respondents identified the ICDBG as a major

59  Responses to the survey question on the number of units affected by each major program included annual and total counts. The type of response was unclear in some cases so the data reported here should be read with that limitation in mind.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

125

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

program, with funding used for remodeling

based on a formula. The funds may be

and rehabilitating homes. Each respondent

used for the production or preservation

estimated that roughly 25 units of housing

of affordable housing through acquisition,

had been affected by this program.

new construction, and/or rehabilitation of

nonluxury housing with suitable amenities.

Three respondents cited ARRA as a

HTF offers a new opportunity for tribes to

major program or source of funds. ARRA

partner with states, because funds are to

funds were used with rental housing

be used for extremely low-income families

efforts. Respondents estimated about 22

or families at or below the poverty line, and

housing units had been affected by ARRA

even small population states will receive the

funding. Seven respondents also said they

minimum $3 million grant.

operated tribal rental assistance programs.

Responses varied in detail; no program

3.6. IHBG Housing Development and

offering type appears to be dominant,

Management

though all seven respondents said the tribal

programs supported rental housing. The

Under NAHASDA, HUD plays an

estimated number of units affected ranged

administrative and oversight role in

from 13 to 73.

delivering housing benefits to Native

Americans and providing funding

Other Publicly Funded Non-IHBG

through a single, tribal y negotiated

Housing Programs Operating in

grant allocation formula. Grantees (tribal

Indian Country

housing departments or TDHEs) submit

an IHP for each program year. In the IHP,

A majority of tribal/TDHE survey

grantees identify their affordable housing

respondents (82 percent) said other

needs and describe the housing activities

organizations offered housing assistance

they plan to pursue to address those

programs in their area. These programs,

needs. At the end of the program year,

offered by tribes, local or state programs,

grantees also must submit an APR that

and federal agencies, support home

outlines accomplishments, and, if federal

improvement and rehabilitation activities,

fiscal year expenditures are $500,000 or

homeownership efforts, and rental

more, the results of an independent audit.

assistance programs. Respondents said

In addition to reporting, grantees must

funding for the programs offered by other

follow requirements for environmental

organizations comes from tribes and federal

reviews, procurement and labor standards,

agencies, including the U.S. Department of

family eligibility, and accounting for

Agriculture (USDA), BIA, HUD, and DOE.

program income. Although the flexibility

of NAHASDA enables tribes to design,

A new affordable housing production

develop, and operate their own affordable

program is the Housing Trust Fund (HTF),

housing programs based on local needs,

established under Title 1 of the Housing

tribal housing departments/TDHEs face

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008,

challenges in carrying out their plans. This

Section 1131 (Public law 110-289).60 This

section describes challenges in developing

program was not mentioned by tribes/

new housing and in maintaining existing

TDHEs because the first allocations of

housing stock, presenting findings from the

these grants were not allocated until May

tribal/TDHE survey and site visits, followed

2016. HUD will allocate grant funds annually

by promising practices and solutions

to states and state-designated entities

implemented or suggested by tribes.

60 https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/htf/.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

126

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Challenges in New Housing

The factors affecting cost and time

do overlap, and site visit respondents

Development

mentioned many of these factors as wel ,

Tribal housing departments/TDHEs face a

offering descriptions and examples of the

wide range of challenges that may affect the

barriers (exhibit 3.62).

cost and also the time it takes to develop

new IHBG housing. Almost all respondents

Infrastructure

to the tribal/TDHE survey indicated that

IHBG funding includes within it “total

development costs had increased during

development costs,” but these are

the past 3 years, with 40 percent saying

not identified separately under the

cost had increased greatly and 57 percent

block grant. The sources of funding for

saying cost had increased somewhat. Of

infrastructure as mandated by law remain

the tribes/TDHEs, 35 percent reported

the same: Indian Health Service (Sanitation

that development cost was a very serious

Facilities Construction, and so on), USDA,

constraint, and another 15 percent said it

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

was a fairly serious constraint in developing

ICDBG, and others, and the IHBG can be

new housing. When asked to name the

used specifical y for infrastructure as wel .

top three factors that increase the cost of

Nevertheless, infrastructure provision

developing new housing, tribes/TDHEs

was mentioned as a barrier to developing

cited the following barriers most frequently

new housing by 14 of the 22 sites visited.

(exhibit 3.61): developing infrastructure

The most commonly cited infrastructure

(70 percent), availability of labor (39

issues across sites were the need for

percent), lack of funds (34 percent), and

expanded water and sewage treatment

acquiring or assembling land (30 percent).

facilities, access to electricity, and access

Regarding barriers that increased the

to roads. According to one Acoma Pueblo

time to develop new housing, the factors

respondent, “the biggest issue we have

named most frequently were environmental

regarding housing is the development of

review process (71 percent), satisfying HUD

infrastructure.” For the Makah Tribe, finding

administrative requirements (56 percent),

land close to existing infrastructure can be

locating and securing outside financial

difficult, especial y because most of the land

support (33 percent), and addressing

is surrounded by forests used for timber

property rights/leasing issues (27 percent).

production. Respondents from the Northern

Arapaho Tribe on the Wind River reservation

Exhibit 3.61 - Barriers to New Housing Development Most Frequently Reported by Tribes/TDHEs Barriers that increase cost

Barriers that increase time

% reporting that barrier

% reporting that barrier

Developing infrastructure

70.4

Environmental review process

70.9

Availability of labor

38.9

HUD administrative requirements

56.1

Lack of funds

34.1

Securing outside financial support

32.5

Acquiring or assembling land

29.7

Property rights and leasing

27.4

Notes: Respondents were asked to name the top three barriers in separate questions about cost and time.

Source: Tribal/TDHE survey 2014-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

127

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Exhibit 3.62 - Factors Mentioned by Sites that Affect Development Costs

Cost-related barriers to development

Number of sites Mentioning  this barrier

Not enough funds

13

Infrastructure

14

Acquiring/assembling land

12

Weather or climate

11

Environmental Review Process

9

Increasing development costs

8

Availability of labor

3

Source: Site visit interviews 2013-2015. N=22

also noted that it is hard to get land close

and a criticism voiced by many TDHEs. To

enough to infrastructure, specifical y gas,

compensate for the lack of infrastructure

water, and highways.

provided, homeowners often must find

a way to fund necessary infrastructure

Site visit respondents described physical

themselves. Multiple respondents noted

challenges to building infrastructure,

that residents were paying for their own

and difficulty in obtaining funds for

septic tanks and electricity lines. At Citizen

infrastructure updates and expansion. At

Potawatomi Nation, the tribal Office of

some sites, the terrain makes it difficult to

Environmental Health (OEH) builds water

run the necessary pipes needed for water

wells and septic tanks for tribal members

and sewage treatment. Risk of flooding

purchasing or building a home in the service

also presents a problem for building

area. A tribal official said, “This program

infrastructure in some locations (Tohono

enhances our housing because, if you

O’odham Nation, Zuni Tribe), while in

have a plot of land that you want to build

others (Lummi Nation, Makah Tribe, Native

on, then OEH can come in and help. Wells

Village of Unalakleet), water shortages limit

and septic tanks cost a lot of money. Any

infrastructure expansion. Respondents at

tribal member residing in the service area

Bad River and at Bishop Paiute noted that

qualifies for this service. Program staff do

their sewage systems were at capacity. At

any of the design work, which is pretty

the Lummi Nation, the sewer system was

much cut and dry. The program will drill

originally built in 1976 and needs to be

you a well if you don’t have access to city or

upgraded. At the Pine Ridge (Oglala Sioux

county water. It is pretty expensive to drill a

Tribe) reservation, respondents reported

well, more than $5000.”

that some infrastructure dates from the

1930s and is disintegrating.

Some tribes/TDHEs have been successful in

obtaining loans or developing partnerships

Site visit respondents reported that it has

with local utility providers. Although

been difficult to obtain funds for necessary

assistance is available from IHS, many

infrastructure updates. NAHASDA funds

respondents reported that the funds were

do not include separate funding for

not sufficient. For example, Bad River

infrastructure expansion and development.

Band of Chippewa respondents reported

This has been a challenge for development,

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

128

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

that IHS is providing engineering services

short construction season can lead to higher

for their new water system, but a funding

development costs.

source to build the system has not yet

The combination of irregular employment

been established. On the other hand,

for construction workers on tribal land,

respondents from White Earth Band of

limited training opportunities in some

Chippewa reported that tribal water and

remote locations, and higher paying

sewage authorities collaborate with IHS

employment outside of tribal areas

to build needed infrastructure. Loans and

leads to worker shortages and higher

grants are also available from USDA and

costs, further limiting the volume of new

the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. At Gila

construction that can be initiated. One

River Indian Community, the tribe has

Yakama Nation respondent explained

developed a profitable partnership with

the problem: “Our costs have increased a

Verizon to provide members with Internet

lot during the past 3 years. This has had

and telephone service. To obtain funding,

a great effect on how much we can get

one Pine Ridge reservation respondent

done. We use a lot of carpenters and their

noted that the tribe has been trying to

rate has doubled in the last few years. That

include infrastructure costs in the project

lowers the number of houses that can be

budgets for new homes, and they have

built. That is just one example—all labor

received assistance from USDA loans for

and materials costs have risen.”

rural development. Lake Traverse reservation

respondents stated that USDA Rural

Lack of Funds and Rising

Development is a very important partner for

Development Costs

infrastructure funds, and they had received

several USDA grants for infrastructure.

Lack of sufficient funding for new

development was a barrier mentioned by

Availability of Labor

respondents at 13 of the 22 sites visited. This

Although availability of labor was mentioned

concern was often raised in combination

at only a few sites visited, a common theme

with discussions of rising development costs.

associated with this barrier appears to exist.

At Chickaloon Native Vil age, funding

Tribal housing departments and TDHEs

shortages, timing of receipt of funds, the

do not have enough construction activity

limited season when construction is possible,

to support construction workers (either

and increasing costs result in serious

in-house employees or contractors) on a

challenges to development. One respondent

consistent basis. This results in workers

at Chickaloon said, “We have to make sure

with the necessary skil s traveling outside

we have funds from last year, and we are

the tribal area for work and then not being

dealing with seasons when the money final y

available when needed in the tribal area. At

comes in. There has been a big decrease in

Pine Ridge reservation, for example, site visit

funds over the last 5 years, and a 30-percent

respondents explained that skilled workers

increase in development costs—just in

go to Rapid City where they can get steady

materials. Some items such as lumber and

work at higher pay. At Bishop Paiute, site

concrete have increased 50 percent.” A

visit respondents reported a shortage of

respondent at Yakama Nation said, “all labor

workers that have the necessary skil s. At

and materials costs have risen.”

three sites, a limited construction season

due to weather is a challenge because

The increasing cost of material was also

paying contractors higher fees during a

mentioned at Omaha Tribe, “One problem

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

129

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

we face is that the cost of materials has

indicated that some families are not wil ing

tripled in the last couple of years. One

to give up land they are not using.

thing that would be helpful would be

A few sites have initiated efforts to buy

to have HUD do some bulk buying and

back fractionated land or land adjacent

storage to lower our costs.” A respondent

to tribal lands. At Gila River, the tribe is

at Lumbee Tribe noted that funding

seeking to buy back land that is owned by

constraints delay development, stating that

non-members, especially land originally

the tribe can afford to build only 12 to 15

allotted to a tribal member that has passed

houses per year, although the need is much

into ownership by a non-member. The

greater and land is available.

Oglala Sioux tribe (Pine Ridge) also has a

Land Assembly and Acquisition

land buy-back program to help ensure that

land goes back to the tribe. Other sites

The process of land assembly and land

try to ensure that the housing authority

acquisition was noted as a barrier to new

owns its own land. In addition to the costs

development by respondents at 12 of the

of finding and obtaining agreement from

22 sites visited. The source of this challenge

owners of parcels, four sites stated that

is fractionated land, which is the result of

they did not have enough funds to purchase

allotments that have been divided among

land or build housing even though land

heirs through probate. Although title

was available. Citizen Potawatomi Nation

ownership was divided among all the heirs,

has established a Realty Department to

the land itself was not physical y divided,

conduct title searches and sets aside funds

and each Indian heir received an undivided

specifically for the purchase of fractionated

interest in the land. With each generation,

land (see the text box, Addressing the

the number of owners increases, resulting in

Challenges of Fractionated Land: Citizen

the highly fractionated ownership of much

Potawatomi Nation).

of Indian land today. To do anything with the

land (that is, develop the property or sell it),

Environmental Review Process

an interest owner must gain consent from a

The environmental review process required

majority of the parcel’s other owners. Unless

for development is a consistent challenge

a tribe owns at least a majority interest in a

that was mentioned by respondents at 9

fractionated tract, the tribe must seek the

of the 22 sites. The National Environmental

approval of the other owners to use the tract

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires

for development purposes.61

agencies to undertake an assessment

Having so many owners makes it hard

of the environmental effects of their

to assemble large enough parcels for

proposed actions, consider reasonable

development. One Lummi Nation respondent

alternatives to proposed actions, and

noted that “there is a divided interest in

allow for public participation before

the land here—the allotments may have a

taking actions and making decisions.

thousand heirs to a small parcel of land. You

All projects entirely or partly financed,

can only mitigate that with 51 percent of

assisted, conducted or approved by

owners deciding something. .. The goal of

federal agencies must comply with NEPA

any tribal member here is to have housing

and other applicable, related federal

on their own land, but they can’t due to the

laws and authorities (HUD, 2015c). The

divided interests.” Site visit respondents at

involvement of multiple federal agencies,

Wind River reservation (Eastern Shoshone)

61  Some 4.1 million fractionated interests are in 99,000 land parcels on 10 million acres of Indian trust land (Kendall, 2011).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

130

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Addressing the Challenges of Fractionated Land: Citizen Potawatomi Nation

Citizen Potawatomi Nation established a Tribal Realty Department to conduct title searches

and other activities related to housing. A tribal leader said, “We do our own title searches.

Our Realty Department can do a lot. We still have to work with the BIA [Bureau of Indian

Affairs] closely on trust land. I point those things out because they enhance housing and our ability to provide housing for our people….”

The tribe has taken advantage of a U.S. Department of the Interior program to help tribes

recover allotments that have many owners/descendants with smal , fractional ownership. A

tribal official described the situation: “Let’s say that my grandfather’s original allotment (under the Dawes Act) is inherited by his children. Some of these heirs may marry a non-Native.

When these heirs (second-generation) die, the land may pass on to many owners. Once the

land goes out of a Native American’s hand, it gets more complicated. What our tribe does

is we allocate $2 mil ion per year to our Realty Department to purchase fractionated land.”

Working with their Realty Department, the tribe has developed ways to purchase fractionated land and maintain flexibility in the uses of that land: “Let’s say that someone is sel ing a house next to or near the Nation’s land, and we want to buy it…. The Nation buys the property;

however, that house is not owned by the Housing Authority, rather it is owned and operated

by the Nation, which may rent or sell the house to a tribal member without doing so under

the stringent NAHASDA [Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act]

regulations. Whenever we acquire land, the Realty Department is involved.”

and their associated regulations and

improvements to assist in expediting the

procedures, has resulted in a complex and

environmental review process. Site visits

cumbersome process. In a 2014 report,

for this study reflect conditions in 2013-

the GAO recommended the establishment

2015, including some of the issues that

of a “coordinated environmental review

were considered by the working group.

process for all agencies overseeing tribal

The length of time and the cost associated

housing development” (GAO, 2014: 34).

with the environmental review process

This recommendation was made to

were common concerns across sites. At

“increase consistency and reduce time

some sites, every house built requires an

and predevelopment cost for Native

environmental review, which can involve

American Housing Assistance and Self-

soil samples and other environmental work

Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)

for each lot. This can be a lengthy process

grant recipients” (GAO, 2014: 34). In

and delays development. Several sites

response to this recommendation, HUD

mentioned that an environmental review is

formed a workgroup composed of all

required when rebuilding on a site as well as

affected agencies to discuss barriers and

for a previously undeveloped site.

solutions to completing environmental

reviews for Indian housing and housing-

Multiple respondents noted that

related infrastructure. In a report released

submitting applications to the BIA to build

in December 2015, the interagency

on sites was particularly time consuming.

workgroup recommended a series of

The process is not automated, and

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

131

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

respondents noted it could take as long

Challenges in Maintaining Existing

as 5 years to get an approval. At Northern

Housing Stock

Arapahoe on the Wind River Reservation,

a respondent said the application goes to

Tribes/TDHEs surveyed were asked

14 different offices as part of the approval

to report their top three maintenance

process. Some respondents mentioned the

challenges for rental units and for Mutual

need for BIA to approve the placement of

Help units (exhibit 3.63). The same three

electrical lines, which can create further

challenges were mentioned most frequently

delay. The requirements often are not

for both types of housing units: (1) tenants

consistent across agencies. For example,

or residents causing damage to the unit, (2)

respondents at Gila River noted a conflict

controlling criminal activity, and (3) tenants

between the BIA and EPA requirements.

or residents not paying rent or mortgage

Respondents at Zuni Tribe pointed out

payment on time. Comparing the two

that BIA does not accept the HUD format

types of housing, damage to the units and

for the paperwork. According to one

controlling criminal activity were mentioned

Yakama Nation respondent, all required

more frequently for rental units, but late

governmental approvals and requests

payment was mentioned more frequently as

move very slowly: “Regulations and

a challenge for Mutual Help units.

approval—everything in the government

Site visits provide additional insight into

works at a snail’s pace. Too many levels of

some of these maintenance challenges.

approval all taking a long time. Everyone

Substance abuse, domestic violence, and

has a different concern or questions and

severe overcrowding were mentioned as

things just generally get bogged down.”

causes of difficult maintenance challenges.

Some respondents were aware that plans

Methamphetamine (“meth”) was noted for

exist at the federal level to improve these

causing serious damage to units. One site

processes. In the meantime, they note that

visit respondent explained that the housing

having to use NAHASDA funds to cover

agency has to test the housing units for

environmental and cultural assessments and

meth exposure. If the level of exposure is

surveys limits what tribes can do with their

within certain levels, it can be remedied

remaining funds.

by an extensive washing process for al

Exhibit 3.63 - Housing Maintenance Chal enges Most Frequently Reported by Tribes/TDHEs, by Type of Housing Percent of respondents who indicated the fol owing were one of their 3 biggest chal enges:

Rental Housing %

Mutual Help Housing %

Causing damage to unit

90.9

79.7

Control ing criminal activity

73.8

64.5

Not paying rent/mortgage on time

65.3

87.8

Lack of trained staff

25.3

13.7

Lack of operations funds for Indian Housing

20.4

26.6

Performance problems with contractors

3.9

6.4

Notes: Respondents were asked to name the top three barriers in separate questions about rental and mutual help Source: Tribal/TDHE Survey, 2014-2015

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

132

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

the wal s and other surfaces. In extreme

repairs that they would like, or that requires

cases, all wal s, floors, and insulation must

longer waits for service. Most use some

be removed. Although housing agencies

type of work order system to schedule

regularly inspect units, and evidence of

and track requests for maintenance and

meth use is grounds for eviction, sometimes

repairs. One site, Blackfeet, developed an

the evidence is not detected until a tenant

app so that work orders can be managed

moves out. Holes in the wal s (sometimes

electronically, and they have shared this

associated with incidents of domestic

with other tribes. Some sites have tried to

violence) add to maintenance challenges

limit maintenance service to homeowners.

and at least one tribe noted that such

For example, at Blackfeet, the maintenance

damage also triggers a call to social services.

team provides landscaping services only

Overcrowded housing places additional

to elderly and handicapped residents.

strain on homes, especial y in bathrooms

Able-bodied residents are expected to do

and kitchens, increasing the incidence of

this themselves, and the housing authority

mold and insects.

makes equipment (for example, weed

trimmers, lawnmowers) available for check-

Weather conditions added to maintenance

out. At Pine Ridge, the housing authority

challenges at several sites: flooding

prioritizes heating, stoves, refrigerator, and

(Blackfeet, Omaha, Gila River, Bad River),

furnace problems and will make referrals

high winds or tornados (Cherokee, Lake

to other programs when the housing

Traverse, Bad River), severe heat (Gila River,

authority does not have the resources to

Cherokee), and severe cold (Unalakleet,

make the repair. In light of maintenance

Pine Ridge) can cause weather-related

challenges and limited resources, several

emergencies that take priority over

tribes have initiated programs to educate

routine maintenance. Sites also frequently

residents on basic home maintenance and

mentioned that the age of the housing stock

repairs. Two examples from Zuni Tribe

increases maintenance costs.

and Lummi Nation are included in the text

boxes, Housing Education and Supportive

Most sites that commented on maintenance

Services: Zuni Tribe and Tenant Education

challenges reported a shortage of staff

and Citizen Participation: Lummi Nation.

(related to lack of funding) that keeps

them from doing all the maintenance and

Housing Education and Supportive Services: Zuni Tribe

The Zuni Housing Authority (ZHA) partners with other programs for specific clients or

families. Its goal is to help families become self-sufficient with rentals and homebuyer

programs. ZHA provides classes to give renters and homeowners the knowledge and

skil s to manage finances and take care of their homes (for example, draining water tanks,

caulking windows). ZHA’s hope is for families to be self-sufficient while maintaining healthy homes. ZHA holds classes several times a year during the day and in the evening. Classes

are oriented toward seasonal changes that affect home maintenance and annual inspections.

“We do our best to work with our clients. We tell them that we are in the business of

providing housing. We identify problems in the early stages for prevention and to be

proactive. We collaborate with other Pueblo of Zuni divisions and on referrals.”

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

133

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Tenant Education and Citizen Participation: Lummi Nation

The Lummi Nation’s Housing Department hosts an annual housing forum on a Saturday in

February. The Housing Department staff provide exhibits relative to their responsibility—

planning, security, maintenance, advocates, and so on. Tribal members attend the event

to socialize and learn; the Housing Department gives out educational pamphlets and door

prizes and solicits input for the next year’s Indian Housing Plan. They provide food, and

participants can bring their children. The Executive Director of the Housing Department

estimates that 200 people or so come during the course of the 8-hour event.

3.7. Homeownership and Mortgage

lending and its impacts on expanding

homeownership on tribal lands.

Lending Programs

Mortgage lending to any traditional y

Background

underserved market is challenging, as

It is important to consider the political history

lenders must reach out to populations

related to land status in Indian Country to

that may not have experience dealing with

understand the current landscape, challenges,

mainstream financial institutions, have very

and successes in mortgage lending.62

limited funds for downpayments, and little

or no credit history. In addition to these

History of Legal Status of Land in

problems, which are present for many lower

Indian Country

income households, originating mortgages

on properties located in Indian Country

The challenge of mortgage lending on tribal

presents unique challenges that relate to

trust land is that the United States holds

the legal status of lands on reservations;

such land in trust for a tribe and the land

the remote locations of reservations that

cannot be readily sold or mortgaged. As a

inhibit the development of an infrastructure

result, mortgages are secured by a leasehold

that can support mortgage lending; a lack

interest in the trust. The legal status of land

of cultural understanding by mainstream

in Indian Country has an important bearing

lenders of Native American attitudes toward

on the ability to secure a mortgage.

the use of credit, particularly when used for

The General Allotment Act of 1887 (or

a land transaction; and, potential y, lenders’

the Dawes Act) and a series of other

discrimination against Native American

historical events establish that land in Indian

mortgage applicants.

Country may be held in trust by the federal

These challenges have been documented

government for the tribe or individual Native

in a number of studies, and changes have

Americans.63 This differs from the remainder

occurred at the policy level and tribal level

of the United States where the vast majority

to home mortgage lending to address

of land is in fee-simple ownership. Trust status

these problems. This section focuses on

offers some advantages to native communities

the changing availability of mortgage

(for example, trust land is not subject to local,

62  This section is a modified excerpt from  Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land (Listokin et al, 2016), which was prepared as part of this study.

63  With the vast territorial expansion of the United States during the mid-1800s, the notion of placing American Indians beyond the bounds of White civilization became untenable. So, the federal government developed and refined a reservation policy. One central legislative piece of the period was the General Allotment Act of 1887, which authorized the breakup of communal tribal lands on reservations into individual ownership parcels. The individual parcels were to be placed under federal trust for a period of time, and lands remaining after allotment (the “surplus” lands) could then be sold off to non-Indian homesteaders.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

134

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

state, or federal taxation), but trust lands can

challenges relating to the legal status of

be difficult to use for collateral for financing

lands on reservations (exhibit 3.71). Another

homes or economic enterprises, and they

challenge arises from the disproportionately

are subject to considerable oversight by the

rural location of Indian Country. In general,

federal government. Although other legal

rural areas have considerable “housing

issues in Indian Country impede the ready

distress” (affordability, structural inadequacy,

use of land for homeownership and other

and overcrowding), especial y among low-

purposes (for example, the legacy of allotment

income and minority households, and rural

sometimes resulted in fractionation of

areas further confront “substantial problems”

ownership), trust land status is a major hurdle.

as described by the Housing Assistance

Council regarding mortgage access and credit

Implications and Challenges for

cost (Housing Assistance Council, 2012).

Homeowners and Lenders

Therefore, successfully originating mortgages

on tribal trust land requires lenders to work

Although Native Americans share

within an environment in which three types

characteristics of other members of

of issues intersect: those related to (1)

traditional y underserved markets, originating

underserved markets, (2) tribal trust land, and

mortgages on Indian land includes unique

(3) rural mortgage production.64

64  A recently taken position of the U.S. Department of Justice is that its attorneys will not proceed with tribal foreclosures unless brought in federal court. The hesitancy of tribes to cede their jurisdiction to the federal courts may result in a reduction of lending in tribal areas and was noted especially by the Northern Pueblos Housing Authority and Santa Clara Pueblo Housing Authority.

Exhibit 3.71 - Unders

Exhibit 3.71 - Unders tanding T

tanding T ribal T

ribal Trus rust Land Mort

t Land Mort

gage L

gage L

ending

ending

Underserved Market Issues:

1. Poor or no credit history

2. Lack of downpayment

3. Little familiarity with the homebuying

process; cultural barriers

4. Limited demand for homeownership

Rural Market Production Issues:

Tribal Trust Issues:

1. Small volume precludes

1. Complex foreclosure process

economies of scale

2. Lengthy processing times

2. Lack of appraisals

for applications

3. Limited housing supply

Source: Laderman and Reid 2010.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

135

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Mortgage Lending Programs65

entire state is an EA. For the remainder,

EAs are restricted to certain counties.

To address these issues, a number of

programs have been developed to facilitate

Because some EAs constitute an entire state,

mortgage lending in Indian Country,

the Section 184 program is not used only for

including Section 184, Section 502 Direct

mortgage lending on tribal trust land. As long

Lending, and U.S. Department of Veterans

as a property is located in an EA, a Section

Affairs (VA) Direct Lending.

184 loan can be originated for properties

located on fee simple, tribal trust, or allocated

Section 184 (NAHASDA)

land. Moreover, in late 2004, HUD issued

guidance that allowed tribes more flexibility

The Section 184 program provides lenders

in designating eligible areas so that they

with a 100 percent guarantee in the event

correspond to their IHBG formula area. As a

of a borrower’s foreclosure. It is available for

result, the size of EAs increased around 2005

single-family housing of one to four units

to 2006, thereby creating a larger potential

located on tribal trust land, allotted trust

market for Section 184 loans, particularly

land or fee simple land in an Indian area.

for areas where fee simple lending was the

The borrower may be an individual tribal

predominant type of transaction.

member, tribe or TDHE. Unlike the Rural

Housing Service (RHS) Section 502 program

Section 502 Direct Lending (USDA

described in later paragraphs, Section 184

Rural)

guarantees are not reserved for moderate-

and low-income homebuyers. Section 184

Under the Section 502 direct loan program,

loans can be made only to borrowers who

RHS provides loans at below-market interest

are members of a federal y recognized tribe,

rates to homebuyers whose household

a regional or vil age corporation as defined

incomes do not exceed 80 percent of Area

in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,

Median Income (AMI).66 Loan terms are up

or one of the following five state (and not

to 33 years and, for households with income

federal y recognized) tribes: Coharie Tribe

less than 60 percent of AMI, may extend

(North Carolina), Haliwa-Saponi Tribe (North

longer. The program offers subsidies, based

Carolina), Lumbee Tribe (North Carolina),

on the homebuyer’s income, that reduce

Waccamaw Siouan Tribe (North Carolina),

the interest rate to as low as 1 percent.

and MOWA band of Choctaw (Alabama).

Although the monthly payment rises as the

Tribes interested in participating in the

homeowner’s income rises, the note rate

Section 184 program must have leasing,

establishes a cap on monthly payments.

eviction, foreclosure, and other procedures

Loans may cover 100 percent of the cost of

and provisions in place (for example, tribal

purchasing a new or existing home, and also

court jurisdiction over real property).

costs of appraisal, title insurance, and other

closing costs. Funds may also be used to

The Section 184 program can be used

repair or relocate a home, prepare a site, or

only for mortgages on properties located

provide water and sewer facilities.

in an approved Indian Operating area

(sometimes called Eligible Areas [EAs]).

Homebuyers must show that they

Exhibit 3.72 shows the location of EAs by

are unable to obtain financing from

state. The map shows that some states

conventional sources on reasonable terms

contain no EAs and that for 23 states, the

but can afford to repay the loan. A low-

65  This section is a modified excerpt from the  Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land  report of this study (Listokin et al., 2016).

66  The RHS also has a Section 502 guarantee program. This program is not generally used to support lending on tribal trust land.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

136

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

income applicant’s repayment ability

must repay the amount of the interest

generally is demonstrated if principal,

assistance or 50 percent of the value of the

interest, taxes, and insurance do not

appreciation of the home, whichever is less.

amount to more than 29 percent of income

VA Direct Lending

(front-end ratio) and total monthly debt

(for housing and all other purposes) does

Since 1992, the Native American Veteran

not exceed 41 percent of income (back-

Direct Loan (NADL) program has provided

end ratio). For low-income borrowers, the

eligible Native American Veterans and

percentages are 33 percent (front-end

their spouses the opportunity to use

ratio) and 41 percent (back-end ratio). The

their VA home loan guaranty benefit on

homebuyer signs a note promising to repay

federal trust land. By statute, before VA

the RHS loan at the “note rate” (a current

may make a loan to any Native American

rate of interest) and gives RHS a mortgage

veteran, the veteran’s tribal or other

on the home. As discussed previously,

sovereign governing body must enter

actual monthly payments are subsidized.

into a memorandum of understanding

The homebuyer also enters into a retention

(MOU) with the VA. The MOU details the

agreement under which, when title is

conditions under which the program will

transferred to a third party, the homebuyer

operate on trust lands (for example, that

Exhibit 3.72 - Map of Eligible Areas for Section 184 loans

WA

ME

MT

ND

VT

OR

MN

NH

ID

SD

WI

NY

MA

WY

MI

RI

PA

CT

IA

NE

NV

NJ

OH

IN

UT

DE

IL

CO

WV

MD

VA

CA

KS

MO

KY

NC

TN

OK

AZ

AR

SC

NM

MS

AL

GA

Area of Section 184 Eligibility

LA

Entire State

TX

AK

Select Counties

FL

Ineligible

Source: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/homeownership/184. Accessed February 3, 2014

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

137

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

the tribe has established standards and

Leveraging trust land was one goal

procedures that apply to the conveyance

expressed by tribal officials, who were

of a leasehold interest in real property by a

enthusiastic about the potential of the

Native American borrower to a lender).

HEARTH Act to break down barriers to

leasing on tribal land. On one site visit,

Native American veterans who are eligible

tribal leaders illustrated how the new

for VA home loan benefits and whose

legislation was rolling out on the ground. As

tribal or other sovereign governments

required by the act, the Citizen Potawatomi

have signed an MOU, may then apply

Nation secured approval of its leasing

directly to VA for a 30-year fixed rate loan

regulations by the Secretary of Interior not

to purchase, build, or improve a home

long before the site visit. A tribal leader

located on federal trust land. They may also

said, “The Act allows a tribal member the

refinance a direct loan already made under

right to lease a home on trust land…. We

this program to lower their interest rate. If

have not been able to do a lease home

the property is not located on federal trust

mortgage until now. Nobody would perfect

land, the Veteran can use the traditional VA-

that until now. Before, all our bricks and

guaranteed Home Loan program.

mortar belonged to us, and we couldn’t

mortgage it at all. We’ve been trying to do

Federal Programs To Address Land

that and, now, I have it on my desk!”

Status and Property Rights Issues

Other Programs To Assist

Given the various challenges of mortgage

Homebuyers

lending related to tribal land status and

property rights issues, recent federal

Beyond federal legislation, many tribes

legislation addressed these barriers in

have designed local programs to respond

hopes of expanding homeownership on

to the particular barriers to homeownership

Indian Country.

amongst their members.

Helping Expedite and Advance

Homebuyer Education

Responsible Tribal Homeownership

(HEARTH) Act

As mentioned in section 2.5, 29 percent of

survey respondents who had never applied

The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates an

for a mortgage mentioned that they did not

alternative land leasing process. Tribes

know how to buy a home or were general y

are authorized to execute agricultural

unfamiliar with the processes, highlighting

and business leases of tribal trust lands

a demand for homebuyer education across

for a primary term of 25 years and up

tribal lands. Site visit interviews reinforced

to two renewal terms of 25 years each

the importance of homebuyer education,

without approval by the Secretary of

as multiple respondents across sites spoke

Interior, provided governing tribal leasing

about this need, as well the need to better

regulations have already been submitted

educate tribal leadership and tribal housing

to the Secretary. Before 2012, tribes had to

department/TDHE staff on the programs

submit leases of tribal land to the Secretary

available to assist members.

of Interior for approval (DOI/BIA, n.d.). Under

the HEARTH Act, tribes are empowered to

The diversity of tribal land requires that

make decisions about land leasing as they

homebuyer education be tailored to the

see fit, in the spirit of self-determination.

unique needs of tribes. Many tribes are

responding to the lack of knowledge around

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

138

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

buying homes in customized ways. Lac

for a downpayment for a home. The amount

du Flambeau partnered with a local loan

is based on income and the interest rate is

fund in an innovative homebuyer education

based on credit score (lower credit score,

program presented in the text box, Lac

higher interest). The downpayment can be

du Flambeau: Homebuyer Education.

used to build or to buy an existing stick

Another example from the Lumbee Tribe

built or manufactured home (the only

is presented in the text box, Lumbee Tribe:

trailers that qualify are double-wides).

Homeownership Program.

Respondents at Lumbee indicated that a

lot of manufactured homes are purchased

Downpayment Assistance

through this program. As one respondent

noted, “We could be helping and hurting

To encourage homeownership, tribes also

them at the same time. But it gives them

designed programs to help households

housing, and that’s the bottom line.”

that could not afford downpayments.

(As reported in section 2.5, 35 percent of

The Lumbee Housing Department will also

renters surveyed mentioned this as a barrier

help a homebuyer with their mortgage if they

and 60 percent of survey respondents who

are behind in their payments. The program

had never applied for a mortgage noted this

provides 2 payments of up to $1,500 each

as a barrier). In another innovative program

to help them catch up. The homeowner has

to support households that want to be

to be delinquent with their mortgage and

homeowners, the Lumbee Tribe can provide

provide evidence of documented hardship.

a one-time loan from $4,000 up to $10,000

Lac du Flambeau: Homebuyer Education

The Lac du Flambeau Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians works with

the Wisconsin Native Loan Fund, Inc. (also known as Wigamig Owners Loan Fund, Inc.,

or WOLF). The Wisconsin Native Loan Fund is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) Certified Community

Development Financial Institution, or CDFI, located in downtown Lac du Flambeau. Wigamig

means “home” in the Ojibwa language. The mission of the Wisconsin Native Loan Fund is to

provide tribal members with access to mortgage lending opportunities that include home

improvement, downpayment assistance, and debt consolidation loans, as the Wisconsin

Native Loan Fund seeks to encourage homeownership and self-sufficiency among tribal

members and their families in and around the Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation. The

Wisconsin Native Loan Fund, Inc. offers a selection of financial development classes, one-on-one technical assistance, and revolving loan fund home products to improve economic and

social conditions on poverty-stricken reservations such as Lac du Flambeau. They do this by providing financial literacy on the reservation and working closely with key tribal members and entities. They also have programs to expose tribal members to credit counseling/credit

repair and to promote good habits around money management and the use of credit.

As seen in this example, a core component of Lac du Flambeau’s program is the provision of

financial literacy and financial development classes. Other important aspects to homebuyer

education, seen in the other creative programs across sites, focused on assistance in financing the home after a client is ready to purchase. The Lumbee Tribe is one such example.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

139

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Lumbee Tribe: Home Ownership Program

The Lumbee Tribe’s Home Ownership Program provides safe, affordable housing for tribal y

enrolled first-time homebuyers who cannot obtain financing with a conventional lender.

The tribe contracts out to build the homes within its service area and serves as the lender, providing a 30-year, low-interest mortgage (1 or 2 percent interest, depending on income).

To qualify, the buyer must have a credit score of 550 or more and demonstrate the ability to afford a house. The Housing Department has three subdivisions where houses can be built,

or the Housing Department will build the home on a lot owned by the client. The tribe will

build only on land that has state-maintained road frontage, because they want to build a

marketable home. At Lumbee, all land is fee simple, so there is no issue regarding using the home for collateral when obtaining financing, as there is in the case of tribal trust lands.

Home Repair/Rehabilitation Loans

Access to and Response by Lenders

Another important strategy for improving

Five sites visited did not have eligible areas

homeownership, is offering home repair

for the Section 184 program and were

and rehabilitation assistance. This is

frustrated by the lack of options available to

particularly helpful for substandard housing

them to aid in buying a home. These sites

conditions, when home rehabilitation can

noted that in some cases, lack of resources

become costly. The Bureau of Indian Affairs

for housing has led to people moving off

administers the Housing Improvement

the reservation. In sites where the program

Program, a safety-net program that

did operate, some noted that they had

provides grants for repairing, renovating, or

trouble finding a lender to participate and

replacing existing housing and for providing

issues with predatory lending. In Acoma

new housing. HIP funds are distributed

Pueblo, one respondent shared that some

on the basis of the number of eligible

of the tribal citizens were “paying exorbitant

applicants and their estimated cost of

interest rates to buy mobile homes,

program services (DOI/BIA, 2015).

which depreciate quickly…” At Wind River

reservation/Eastern Shoshone, interview

On-the-Ground Efforts Since

respondents highlighted difficulty in finding

NAHASDA

lenders, despite the intended advantages

of Section 184 program. Respondents said

Interview respondents spoke about many

that some banks still do not want to be

challenges and successful efforts to improve

involved with trust land, so people have to

homeownership, particularly around

go to South Dakota for mainstream banks

the Section 184 program and initiatives

to get a Section 184 loan.

around homebuyer readiness, because the

concept of homeownership and mortgage

Beyond perceived discrimination, some

was new for many. Although demand for

logistical concerns existed with lenders.

homeownership exists, barriers regarding

One respondent at Lummi Nation said,

access to lenders, tribal capacity, and credit

“We struggle with the banks where they

issues still remain.

sell loans and the banks buying the loans

aren’t familiar with 184 and owners have to

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

140

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

keep up with where to send the payment.”

the challenge of buying a traditional home

Furthermore, multiple sites mentioned that

on the reservation. Some sites, however,

the paperwork associated with getting titles

explicitly mentioned that they did not offer

and using Section 184 was too lengthy and

downpayment assistance for mobile homes.

was a deterrent for some people.

Alongside the tribal capacity shown in many

Tribal Capacity and Innovative

areas, tribal politics remained a barrier for

Approaches

some sites. One site mentioned that elders

of the tribal religious clan do not allow

Tribes have demonstrated the capacity to

Section 184 mortgages due to concerns

implement useful programs that respond

of potential foreclosures. The respondent

to local needs, as seen in the homebuyer

shared the following concern: “The bank will

education and financing programs discussed

have first claim on the allotment and thus

previously. They have initiated partnerships

the land will be alienated from tribal control.”

with other organizations; see the example

There is “fear that 184 would lead to a

presented in the text box, Choctaw Nation:

class system on the reservation.” Interview

Home Purchasing and Financing Program.

respondents at Tohono O’odham also noted

In site visit interviews respondents also

that the local district had some concerns

described alternative ways that members

that they could lose some of their authority

are finding homes when homeownership

using Section 184 if the bank held the lease

barriers cannot be immediately overcome.

on the land.

At Tohono O’odham Nation, site visit

3.8. Leveraging and Strengthening

respondents suggested that a lease-to-

the Private Market: Challenges and

purchase option should be offered to assist

Solutions

people in obtaining affordable housing.

The tribe could purchase the home and

NAHASDA changed the system for funding

lease to own to a given member until they

and developing housing, with a focus on

are qualified for Section 184. At Bishop

tribal self-determination and flexibility

Paiute, downpayment assistance is offered

to accommodate the diversity of needs

for purchasing mobile homes to overcome

and cultural preferences across Indian

Choctaw Nation: Home Purchasing and Financing Program

Working in collaboration with the Wel s Fargo Bank and PMI Mortgage Insurance, the

Choctaw Nation developed a home purchasing/financing program—Choctaw Home Finance

Cooperative. One instrument used to finance housing is the Section 184 Loan Guarantee

Program. Described as the “best tool,” this program has had regulatory changes that have

made it closer to conventional lending. Employed Choctaw tribal members nationwide can

use this streamlined program. It provides favorable rates (3-percent loans) and can cover

closing costs. The program has surpassed $100 mil ion in loans to tribal members across the nation. The default rate is low (2 percent) and occurs mostly outside the state of Oklahoma).

The Choctaw Nation can lend to cover closings, certifications, appraisals, and downpayments (so far, though, no members have used it for downpayments).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

141

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Country. One intention of NAHASDA was

respondents (89 percent) reported private

to enable and encourage tribes to secure

subsidies were included in 25 percent or

much more private investment and be less

fewer projects (including zero subsidy).

dependent on government support to

Thus, the proportion of projects subsidized

increase the supply of appropriate housing.

by funds other than IHBG is smal , and of

Another underlying goal was to foster

that group, the proportion with private

innovation in housing development. Section

investment is even smaller. The activity that

3.2 presented APR data submitted by

is under way, however, is significant and

NAHASDA grantees showing that grantees

promising, given that this activity is new

received less than $2 per $100 of IHBG

for most tribes and that many challenges

grants from private-sector investment. The

remain. The barriers to leveraging that were

flexibility and complexity of leveraging

most frequently reported by tribes/TDHEs

private investment, which is often combined

are lack of interest from other organizations

with other government and/or tribal funds,

or financial institutions (45 percent); lack of

however, makes reporting this information

availability of programs (42 percent); political

especially difficult. This section presents

tensions between the tribe, TDHE, and other

qualitative information from the tribal/TDHE

organizations (35 percent); administrative

survey and site visits about successful

constraints (33 percent); and differing

examples of leveraging private investment,

priorities (31 percent).

other innovative initiatives undertaken in

the spirit of NAHASDA, and barriers that

Site Visit Responses, Examples

constrain private investment in housing and

of Leveraging, and Promising

community development in Indian Country.

Approaches

Tribal/TDHE Survey Findings About

Site visit respondents at 18 of 22 sites

discussed leveraging, reporting varying

Leveraging

experiences and degrees of success.67

When asked about the percent of al

The findings and examples that follow

housing and rehabilitation projects carried

include leveraging of other government

out or under way in the past 5 years that

funds, partnerships, and other promising

involved sources other than IHBG finds, the

approaches and also examples of leveraging

level of such activity reported by tribes/

private investment. These activities al

TDHEs is limited. Almost 69 percent of

demonstrate the motivation and creativity

respondents indicated that the percent

that tribes are drawing upon to address

of housing construction or rehabilitation

housing and economic development needs

projects that used housing subsidies other

with severely limited resources. In general,

than IHBG Funds was 25 percent or less

even at sites that had limited experience or

(including zero subsidy), and almost 18

no projects that leveraged funds outside

percent of respondents reported subsidies

of IHBG, the flexibility to leverage funds to

in the range of 26 to 50 percent of projects.

expand housing development and housing

These subsidies include other HUD and

services was viewed positively. Respondents

state or federal subsidies. When asked

at many sites, however, noted challenges with

what proportion of these projects were

leveraging NAHASDA funding because, after

carried out jointly with private developers

they cover their operating and maintenance

who invested their own capital, most of the

costs, little or no funding remains to

67  These topics were not asked about systematically across all sites. Rather, these are issues raised by respondents during site visit interviews, so the problems and solutions might be particular to a small number of programs.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

142

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

leverage. A respondent from Pine Ridge said,

Funds To Expand Housing Opportunities).

“The purpose of NAHASDA was to leverage

A respondent at the site said, “NAHASDA

funding, but you need funding to leverage

helps to leverage other funds when we need

more, and show you have the resources to

to pool resources to create projects.”

borrow—this doesn’t work if people are too

Other examples of leveraging include an

poor to pay rent.”

EPA grant obtained by Bishop Paiute that

LIHTC was the program most mentioned

required a 50 percent match that was

by site visit respondents in connection

difficult for the tribe to come up with.

with leveraging, and was used at nine

Chickaloon Native Vil age used a USDA

sites.68 Two other sites had applied for

loan to purchase a gravel pit needed for

LIHTC, but at the time of the site visit,

construction. Their plan is to build a project

had not yet heard whether they had been

and then pay off the loan with revenue from

approved. Bad River is one site that has

the project. Wind River Eastern Shoshone

embraced the opportunity offered by

obtained a Federal home loan bank grant

LIHTC. As stated by one respondent,

in 2000 that was used for renovation of 50

“The prospect of leveraging money for

homes. In addition, eight tribes mentioned

new development through programs like

using the Title VI loan guarantee. These

LIHTC has created the possibility of new

varied opportunities do not always bring in

development—this has changed the focus

new private investment, but use other federal

of the housing authority from exclusively

funds such as ICDBG, and sometimes the

perpetuating existing stock.” Even with

tribe provides funds or land to support a

two successful experiences, however,

project. A number of site visit respondents

criticisms remained regarding the state’s

mentioned the need to work with experts,

LIHTC quality assurance plan, which the

hire additional staff, or obtain more training

tribe thought favored urban projects. It

to improve their ability to leverage funding

was also noted that many projects require

and combine multiple funding sources.

a minimum match of 20 percent. The

The flexibility allowed under NAHASDA and

application requirements and paperwork

the diverse circumstances of tribes offer a

are such that Bad River appointed a

wide range of examples for consideration

project manager specifically for tax credit

by other tribes and also policymakers. The

and ARRA projects because the process

text boxes in the remainder of this section

required too much work for regular staff.

provide some illustrative examples from

A respondent at White Earth, a tribe that

the Lumbee Tribe (Leveraging NAHASDA

is working on its fifth LIHTC project, noted

Funds To Expand Housing Opportunities),

that more investors and developers are

Blackfeet Nation (Leveraging and

interested in building with LIHTC monies,

Private Market Development), Zuni Tribe

such as the Greater Minnesota Housing

(Leveraging Funding Sources and Partners),

Fund. It was also pointed out, however,

Makah Tribe (Makah’s Supportive Housing

that LIHTC does have restrictions, such as

Project: Leveraging Funds To Meet Needs

set aside requirements for single parents,

of Tribal Members), and Pine Ridge Indian

homeless, veterans, and elders. The Lumbee

Reservation (Partnership Helps To Build a

Tribe has also successfully used LIHTC and

New Vision for Oglala Sioux).

other sources for development (see the text

box, Lumbee Tribe: Leveraging NAHASDA

68  A fuller examination of LIHTC in Indian Country could be undertaken using LIHTC data. Although LIHTC data are geocoded to latitude and longitude, and to census tract, they are not identified as being within tribal lands or not. To be of use, the data would have to be geocoded using tribal land shape files, a task that was beyond the scope of this project.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

143

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Lumbee Tribe: Leveraging NAHASDA Funds To Expand Housing

Opportunities

The Lumbee Tribe works closely with its community partners, the local bank, and the city

(Pembroke, North Carolina) to develop funding packages for housing that serves the needs

of tribal members. Using these partnerships, along with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

(LIHTC) and Title VI, the tribe is providing new, energy-efficient housing and accommodating the needs of elders and those with disabilities. Examples include— a $7.2 mil ion rental

housing project supported by LIHTC through the State of North Carolina. The tribe built

50 rental homes. The homes are two- and three-bedroom ENERGY STAR homes. The

timing of this project initial y was problematic. In 2008, when the housing market crashed, nobody would buy the credits, but then the stimulus (American Reinvestment and Recovery

Act) came in and the tribe was able to use that funding to buy the tax credits. Because

the project used only Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, or

NAHASDA, and stimulus funds, it did not cost the Lumbee Tribe any additional money. Of

the 50 houses, 7 are designed for accessibility: built at ground level or with ramps and with accessible showers and toilets.

The Lumbee Tribe recently received approval for a 50-unit elderly (age 55 or older) rental

building. The project is funded by $5 mil ion through the LIHTC Program and with a $2

mil ion Title VI loan.

Blackfeet Nation: Leveraging and Private-Market Development

Through the Montana Housing Tax Credit Program, Blackfeet Housing leveraged resources

to build affordable housing. Working in partnership with Blackfeet Housing on the Tax Credit Initiative are Raymond James Financial and Travois, Inc. Blackfeet Housing applied to the

Montana Housing Board and was funded. The Housing Authority worked with a consultant to

sell the tax credits for the maximum amount. Blackfeet Housing received $5.7 mil ion in tax credits from the state, which translated to $5.3 mil ion for new construction. The tax credit homes are for low-income housing (20 to 40 percent less than median income). Operational

costs are paid through Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds. Funds must be committed

up front to begin the project. Blackfeet Housing used $20,000 per unit from IHBG and will

build 30 tax credit homes. The Executive Director of Blackfeet Housing Authority said, “We

can’t afford to not take advantage of this.” The Montana Housing Tax Credit Program has the support of the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

144

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Zuni Tribe: Leveraging Funding Sources and Partners

The Zuni Housing Authority (ZHA) leveraged funds from multiple partners to build new

housing on the reservation. The Zuni Tribe, the Federal Highway Administration, the ZHA,

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs all contributed funds, along with American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act funds, to develop the Bluebird subdivision. Zuni homeowners obtain

mortgages through U.S Department of Veterans Affairs loans, Section 184, New Mexico

Mortgage Finance Authority, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Self-

Help. Wel s Fargo provides assistance for helping homebuyers become credit worthy. ZHA

leveraged Indian Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block Grant

funds that are targeted for housing rehabilitation and reconstruction. Zuni was the first

tribe in New Mexico to get a USDA Rural Self-Help grant to help families build their own

homes using “sweat equity.” A $279,000 USDA Section 523 grant served as seed money for

technical assistance for the project. The homes were financed with USDA Section 502 direct

mortgages, at about $90,000 each.

Makah’s Supportive Housing Project: Leveraging Funds To Meet Needs of

Tribal Members

Respondents in Makah described a new development called Sail River Heights, which is a

51-acre subdivision built on higher ground outside the vulnerable tsunami flood zone where

most of the community of Neah Bay, Washington, is located. This development includes the

tribe’s first permanent supportive housing project to provide rental housing, health care,

jobs, and counseling to formerly homeless families and individuals. To finance construction, the tribe used a variety of sources, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program,

or LIHTC; a loan from the Washington State Trust fund; funding from the Federal Home Loan

Bank; a predevelopment loan from Enterprise Community Loan Fund; and tribal resources.

The project consists of 21 units of affordable, permanent supportive housing for members

of the community requiring access to social services. The project includes 12 one-bedroom

units, 4 two-bedroom units, and 4 three-bedroom units to accommodate different size

families and also an apartment for the manager. The final supportive housing idea for Makah was born out of a regional tribal meeting that occurred in Seattle in March 2011, where

participants included representatives from a supportive housing homeless shelter developed

on a reservation in Minnesota. The sharing of the Minnesota experience of a successful

supportive housing concept helped to inspire the supportive housing project developed in

Makah’s Sail River Heights development.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

145

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Pine Ridge: Partnership Helps To Build a New Vision for Oglala Sioux

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act’s (NAHASDA’s)

influence extends beyond the number of homes built. The Oglala Sioux provide an example

of how work distinct from NAHASDA-funded activities has been made possible, in part,

through the partnerships formed with NAHASDA grantees and a broadened sense of who

is responsible for addressing housing needs. The Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for Housing (OSTPH) is a partnership of the Oglala Sioux Lakota Housing Authority (OLHA), Oglala

Sioux Tribe (OST), and Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation (TVCDC) to

support housing and a sustainable community. OSTPH is a nonprofit organization founded

in 1999. Partners serve different segments of the population and have varying missions and

funding sources, but all embrace housing as a responsibility. OSTPH is a subgrantee under

NAHASDA, and its funding supports board administration and homebuyer education. OLHA,

the prime NAHASDA grantee, provides assisted housing, primarily on tribal trust land, and

works with the partnership to assist prospective homebuyers (for example, credit repair,

homebuyer education, lease issues related to fractionated land) and to assist homeowners

with repairs and rehabilitations. TVCDC is developing a planned community on 34 acres

owned by its nonprofit organization. Although the project does not receive funding from

NAHASDA, all the partner organizations collaborate to create a more efficient process

toward homeownership and community development.

TVCDC is premised on “how to build a system to meet the need, not just a roof over the

head, but to empower the community.” The planned community is a project designed by

the Oglala Lakota people and guided by elders. In 2010, the community received a grant

from HUD to help develop the project and it continues to receive funding from foundations,

donors, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies, and individuals.

It will provide mixed-income single-family and multifamily housing with both rental and

homeownership opportunities, and it will include a youth shelter, food-growing operations,

community and education facilities, and retail spaces for local businesses. The project also uses innovative programs to train the local workforce, including youth, in green building

practices and to guide families to build their own homes.

The first project completed was to build an energy-efficient straw bale house in partnership with the University of Colorado at Boulder and Oglala Lakota College. Housing built in this area must withstand a harsh environment—high heat in summer and bitter cold winters.

Youth working on the building project receive assistance to obtain a general educational

development, or GED, certificate followed by training in green construction methods. The

longer-term goal is to move youth into employee-owned construction firms.

TVCDC hired a homeownership coordinator to work with families through the homebuying

process and is also working with the OSTPH and OLHA on homebuying and credit

counseling. TVCDC works with Mazaska Owecaso Otipi Financial, a Native Community

Development Financial Institution (CDFI), that provides housing loans and assistance.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

146

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

3.9. Conclusions and

This study has produced partial evidence

on most of these criteria. This evidence

Recommendations

is reviewed in subsequent paragraphs,

This project was not asked to conduct

along with a discussion of what is

a formal evaluation of NAHASDA.

insufficient or missing.

Nonetheless, it offers many findings

pertinent to an understanding of how

Administrative capacity: The tribes were

programs are working in the NAHASDA

able to establish new administrative

framework and of opportunities to

entities and processes to administer the

improve performance.

IHBG and related programs fairly quickly

after enactment.

This section begins by offering a framework

When NAHASDA was enacted,

for assessing performance under NAHASDA

uncertainties were expressed (by

and then notes, for each element of the

legislators, appropriators, and some Indian

framework, (1) relevant findings from this

housing stakeholders) as to whether the

study that shed light on results so far;

tribes would have the capacity to take

and (2) other information that would be

over the administration of demanding

needed to round out a more satisfying

housing programs. This study shows

assessment. Then, based on the partial

that, even though administrative capacity

assessment just presented, the section

does remain an issue at some level in

offers recommendations about improving

many places (see section 3.4), these

system performance. Final y, it offers

basic challenges have largely been met

recommendations on steps that could be

(see section 3.4 and 3.6). The evidence is

taken to monitor housing and other relevant

provided by the ONAP monitoring system

conditions in Indian Country more frequently

and information from the tribal/TDHE

and efficiently as a basis for effective

survey and site visit interviews (see section

adaptations to policies and programs.

3.4). Responsibilities were transferred to

System Performance Under

new tribally controlled entities reasonably

NAHASDA

soon after NAHASDA was enacted. In

addition, as noted in section 3.4, the task

What questions would be asked by a

entailed developing capacity in many more

performance assessment of NAHASDA? It

places. In 1990, 187 IHAs were providing

would begin with information on whether the

HUD-assisted housing in 467 tribal areas.

administrative capacity needed to operate

In FY 2014, 363 IHBG grant recipients

the program could be established. It would

provided assisted housing to 553 tribes.

then look at conventional measures related

to program outputs: quantity, quality, cost

It took a few years before the APR

efficiency, and whether the mix of outputs

system was functioning adequately,

responded to the varying needs of the

but ONAP staff report almost 100

beneficiaries. Next, it would offer measures

percent compliance with APR reporting

of client satisfaction. Given the specific hopes

requirements after that. The APRs

for NAHASDA, it would also offer information

document what and how much was

pertaining to innovation and leveraging.

produced or accomplished under each

Final y, it would have to examine information

program element and the amount of funds

on program integrity and accountability.

spent on them (see section 3.2). ONAP’s

quality control system verifies the results.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

147

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Quantity. The new system has proven able to

Cost Efficiency: This study does not

match or exceed the previous rate of assisted

address cost efficiency but does offer some

housing production in Indian Country under

insights for future assessments.

the old approach. Limits on funding are now

An assessment of the development of cost

a major constraint on production.

performance under IHBG was beyond the

Tabulations presented in section 3.3 show

scope of this study, so no data are presented

that the tribes’ production under IHBG

on that topic. Based on working with the

ramped up to peak levels (2,400 hard units

APR data and visiting many IHBG grantees

and 4,100 rehabilitated units per year) in

for this study, the research team thinks that

the 2007-to-2010 period. Output expanded

providing meaningful comprehensive data

even more rapidly from those levels as

on quality and cost through the APR system

ARRA funds became available (an additional

would be expensive and not cost-effective.

2,000 hard units and 13,300 rehabilitated

A more effective way to provide useful data

units between 2009 and 2012). Production

on these topics in the future would be for

declined after that as funding was reduced

ONAP to select a random sample of IHBG

so much in real terms that reductions in

developments completed each year, and hire

output were necessitated.

experienced independent contractors to do

thorough analyses of the quality and costs

Quality: This study does not provide direct

of those developments. Such analyses are

evidence of the quality of IHBG housing.

difficult because specific development barriers

in individual tribal areas need to be factored

Nothing indicates that housing produced

in. For example, costs that seem excessive

under IHBG is inadequate or different than

by the standards of cities in the same state

that produced under the old system. Survey

may well be deemed reasonable after specific

results reported in section 3.3 show that the

conditions in an area are understood.

incidence of one or more severe physical

housing deficiencies in assisted housing in

Mix of housing types and development

tribal areas in 2014-15 (22 percent of units)

patterns: The mix of housing types and

was the same as that for unassisted housing.

development patterns produced under

The survey does not support estimates of

NAHASDA appears more sensitive to

the share of those deficiencies that existed in

local determinants, including culture, in

housing produced under NAHASDA versus

individual tribal areas than was the case

that under the earlier 1937 act programs

under the old approach.

that were still occupied. (Higher point

estimates of overcrowding now in assisted

One major criticism of HUD’s pre-

housing compared with unassisted housing

NAHASDA production program was that

indicate not that differences in the quality of

its products were not always sensitive to

the housing produced existed but that not

the needs and desires of the populations

enough assisted housing was produced in

at hand. Each tribal area has its own

relation to the need.) APRs from the tribes

cultural preferences and its own situation

indicate that, in their assessment, only 1

determines the best design for the housing

percent of units produced under NAHASDA

development agenda. The pre-NAHASDA

through FY 2012 are of such low quality that

system had many examples of mismatches

they need to be replaced and 9 percent

in this regard, such as instances in which

need to be rehabilitated (exhibit 3.37).

HUD used standardized “tract house”

models across many types of tribal areas

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

148

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

without regard to differences in local

Innovation: Substantial anecdotal evidence

cultures, conditions, and preferences.

indicates that processes are better aligned

with tribe and resident needs now than

This study did not assemble exhaustive

under the old, more rule-bound approach.

information on this topic, but substantial

In general, the tribes seem to be stepping

anecdotal evidence indicates that having

up to the challenge of self-determination

the tribes become directly responsible for

in housing.

making housing type and pattern choices

has made a critical difference (see, for

Evidence of partnerships, not only to

example, the discussion in section 3.3;

leverage funds, but also to provide

HUD/PD&R, 2015a).

homebuyer education, teach home

maintenance, improve home energy

Leveraging funds: Although far from

efficiency, and provide training and

ubiquitous, many examples of leveraging

employment in the building trades was an

show that it could not have taken place

important finding of this study’s site visits.

under the old system.

As with leveraging, a more systematic review

of these activities, along with continued

The promise of NAHASDA was not just more

opportunities for sharing ideas among

assisted housing development per se, but

tribes, will document progress and build on

rather a fundamental change to the system by

these successes.

which housing would be developed in Indian

Country. The new system was to produce

Accountability. The tribal/TDHE survey

more appropriate and ample housing because

and site visit interviews support the view

it would secure much more private investment

that the system is now more broadly

(like outside market-oriented systems) and

accountable to tribal members—that

be less dependent on government support.

tribal members are able to participate

The data on leveraging in section 3.2 and

more through their tribal governments

many of the development examples cited

in planning and other programmatic

in sections 3.6 through 3.8 indicate that this

decisionmaking.

sort of change has been at least initiated

in many tribal areas. Not enough reliable

As noted in section 3.5, a substantial

information is being generated, however, to

majority of tribes/TDHEs reports active

support firm judgments on where and how

consultation with community residents in

much progress is being made. Pinning down

planning and other aspects of their work—71

progress in this area seems worth additional

percent with IHBG housing residents and

effort by ONAP. First, a more explicit and

65 percent with other community residents.

serious review of the data provided in table

Almost all (90 percent) tribes/TDHEs say

1 of the APRs (see the previous discussion

they hold community meetings and 69

regarding exhibit 3.22) should occur, with

percent say they conduct informal visits

more extensive probing of the entries on this

and discussions with various groups. In

table. Next, coupling evidence from these

the preponderance of site-visit interviews

reviews with additional anecdotal evidence,

that dealt with the subject, interviewees

ONAP should consider establishing a

indicated that the level of resident

balanced, but systematic, approach to rating

engagement is higher than it was before

the tribes on their efforts at leveraging and

NAHASDA. Some of this is to be expected,

entrepreneurialism in housing and economic

because decisions about the housing

development more broadly.

agenda are now under the provenance

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

149

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

of tribal governments, which in itself

Recommendations for Improving

implies residents’ voices would have more

Performance Based on the Findings

of a chance to make a difference than

of This Study

under the old HUD/IHA system. Many site

interviewees noted, however, that resident

Regardless of the level of IHBG funding

voice was making more of a difference

provided, HUD and other federal agencies

in tribal deliberations in general with the

need to help tribes better leverage the

emphasis on self-determination.

assistance they receive to generate both

economic development and housing

Although they recommend some

improvement in an integrated manner,

changes, tribal leaders and

particularly in the places that need it most.

administrators almost uniformly prefer

operations under NAHASDA to the

It is clear that the amount of federal housing

system that existed before.

assistance provided to Indian Country to

this point has not been sufficient to meet

Program administrators do call for some

the need. In real terms, the flow of IHBG

changes in the regulations—for example,

funding is now trending down in relation

in general administration (58 percent)

to this need. Further, it is evident that

and developing new units (49 percent)—

at this time, insufficient funding, more

but nothing major. The only frequent

than administrative capacity, is the major

criticism of NAHASDA is that a sizeable

constraint on providing housing.

number of tribes/TDHEs think it may be

offering them less funding than under the

In considering policy options, the diversity

previous approach.

of conditions across tribal areas is of great

importance. Housing problems in some

This study offers little evidence in two

tribal areas are much more severe than

areas: (1) beneficiaries’ satisfaction with

in others. This means that the focus must

assisted housing and (2) program integrity.

be on innovative technical assistance and

training that will encourage the tribes,

The household survey did ask about

especial y those most in need, to markedly

satisfaction with housing, but the results

enhance their own development efforts—

were similar for those living in assisted

learning from other tribes that have been

housing and other residents of tribal areas.

most successful in expanding their local

This study was not funded to conduct

economies and channeling resources to

research on the topic of program integrity,

address unmet housing needs efficiently.

such as assuring that funds are not misused.

A new type of targeted approach is

Although gaps remain in the information

recommended then—one that jointly

base, all the findings of this study

addresses economic and housing

support the overall conclusion: Although

development in tribal areas that are most

needs for capacity improvement remain

distressed. Although HUD programs in tribal

widespread, the housing assistance

areas have always had the twin purposes

system established under NAHASDA

of housing and economic development,

appears to be functioning reasonably well

a stronger focus on this intersection is

and is doing what it was intended to do.

needed. This approach envisions movement

It represents a marked improvement over

toward an ideal program, while maintaining

the previous approach.

the current IHBG program. In many cases,

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

150

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

this approach may involve helping tribes

cost more than $6 million and took

make the fundamental institutional changes

more than 6 years to complete.) With

that have been critical to establishing a

competing demands for research resources,

dynamic market economy in tribal areas

decisionmakers had a hard time mobilizing

elsewhere: emphasizing the rule of law in

support for a study of this scope.

dispute resolution and other aspects of tribal

The high cost of this study was driven

activity, separating politics from day-to-day

mostly by the challenging task of

administration and business affairs, and

conducting a reliable random sample

creating an efficient tribal bureaucracy;

household survey, particularly in tribal areas

however, it would also include practical

that often lack rural addressing in many

technical assistance and training on

places and require intensive fieldwork to

the specific design and operation

build sample frames. In some cases, surveys

of programs developed to support

of this kind are the only options, but, in this

the new strategies. Models would be

case, strong reasons indicate that nearly all

developed based on successful programs

the information that needs to be updated

implemented in other tribal areas, but

for policymaking can be obtained without a

modified as appropriate to address

separate household survey.

cultural, regional, and other differences.

ACS data products are now released every

HUD’s ONAP could play a leading role in

year, and although sample sizes are too

this effort. It has a solid track record of

small to support reliable estimates for

long-established relationships helping tribes

smaller tribal areas individual y, they are

achieve their housing objectives. ONAP

ample to support reports on most needed

would need additional resources enabling it

indicators for tribal areas in total by region,

to play an expanded role.

and for larger tribal areas individual y (as

Monitoring AIAN Housing and

demonstrated by the use of ACS data in this

Socioeconomic Conditions More

report). It is also noteworthy that a major

Effectively

increase in the national ACS sample size

was implemented in 2011, so ACS data in the

A second recommendation is that HUD

future will be more reliable than the 2006–

initiate a program to more frequently

2010 data used in this report.69

monitor housing and other conditions of the

AIAN population nationwide, primarily taking

It is recommended that HUD support

advantage of the Census Bureau’s decennial

studies that rely on decennial census and

census and American Community Survey.

ACS data in census years (for example,

2020, 2030), and on ACS data alone for the

HUD published its first comprehensive

intervening 5-year points (for example, 2015,

national assessment of AIAN housing

2025, 2035). The cost should be less than

conditions in 1996. Between that time and

that for this study, and spreading it over the

this study, 20 years later, all stakeholders

years should make it even more palatable for

concerned with housing conditions in

a cost-conscious legislature to support. The

tribal areas have had little information on

currency of the data should make a greater

changing circumstances to guide their

contribution to timely and cost-effective

policy deliberations. The long time gap

adaptations of policies and programs.

is explained by the fact that a study of

this kind is very expensive. (This study

69  This increase raised the national sample to 3.5 million addresses, up from 2.9 million in the 2000s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a).

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

151

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

Two reports are recommended in each

It is recommended that comparisons of

reporting year. The first could be called

other circumstances and trends in this

The Changing Circumstances of American

report be made using the AIAN alone

Indians and Alaska Natives: National Review.

group (as has been done in part 1 of this

This report would look at conditions for

current report). These analyses start from

AIAN populations nationwide across all

the view that forming sound policy related

geographies. It would compare indicators

to AIAN populations needs to be based

for AIAN populations in tribal areas and

on an understanding of how they differ

surrounding counties with those in other

from non-Indians along many dimensions,

metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas

not just economic. The substantive scope

(in short, it would resemble part 1 of

of the census and ACS fortunately can

this report). No one else now regularly

answer questions across a very broad

produces a report like this and it should be

range. Again, in each instance, information

of great value to the overall AIAN policy

is needed to compare—

community. The second report could

•  Circumstances for AIAN populations

be called:  The Changing Circumstances

across the different geography types and

of American Indians and Alaska Natives:

regions.

Housing Conditions and Needs in Indian

Country. This report would focus on tribal

•  Circumstances over time, comparing

areas, with the NAHASDA/HUD policy

current information to 5-10 years ago.

community as its primary audience (like this

current final report overall). These reports,

•  Housing problems and other indicators

as envisioned, are further described in

for the AIAN population to the same

subsequent paragraphs.

indicators for non-Indians.

The Changing Circumstances of

On the sociodemographic side, topics of

American Indians and Alaska Natives:   concern include population age, household

National Review

size and composition, and education levels.

Economic indicators include those related

In census years, this report would begin

to labor force participation and employment

with a review of changes in AIAN population

(by type and sector as appropriate), and

totals during the past decade, similar to

a second group of economic indicators

that presented in section 1.2. Data would

pertaining to income and poverty rates.

be reported for the main racial categories

(AIAN alone and AIAN multiracial) for the

Then, the report could present available

following basic geographies: tribal areas,

data on changes in housing conditions. At

surrounding counties and other metropolitan

this point, these data include only basic

and non-metropolitan areas, national total,

descriptors from regularly published ACS data:

and totals for each ONAP region. The report

vacancy rates, tenure, and structure type. In

would include explicit comparisons with the

this current report, the research team was

rates of non-Indian (or all race) populations,

able to take advantage of the ACS selected

addressing questions such as—Is the AIAN

population tables made available from the

population growing faster or slower, by

2006–2010 ACS survey which contained many

how much, and where? For the in-between

more housing-related indicators for larger

years, this population analysis would not be

tribal areas (see discussion in section 2.2). The

included, because the ACS does not offer

Census Bureau unfortunately has not released

comparable data for this purpose.

these tables since that time, and does not now

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

152

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

plan to do so in the future. It is recommended

The next major section of the report would

that HUD urge the Census Bureau to prepare

examine trends in housing conditions,

these selected population tables again,

problems, and needs in tribal areas. This

at least at 5-year intervals consistent with

analysis would rely primarily on HUD’s

the timing of the recommended AIAN

“special tabs” data provided by the Census

reports. The 2006–2010 reports began with

Bureau—the same data analyzed in section

several important descriptive topics: age of

2.3 of this report. Data would cover AIAN

structure, unit size, home values, and rent,

multirace households in tribal areas. Again,

including the basic ACS housing problem

these data permit presenting the key

indicators: plumbing/kitchen deficiencies,

indicators in the combined form: plumbing/

overcrowding, and housing cost burden.

kitchen deficiencies and/or overcrowding

and/or cost burden). They also permit

The Changing Circumstances of

analysis of conditions and trends for low-

American Indians and Alaska Natives:   income AIAN households in contrast to

Housing Conditions and Needs in

AIAN households in higher-income groups.

Indian Country

In this current report, the research team

looked at only the NAHASDA-eligible group

This report would be structured and

(less than 80 percent of median income).

written for audiences concerned primarily

In future reports, it is recommended

with housing problems in Indian Country

that HUD also examine the situation for

and performance under NAHASDA. It

yet lower income subgroups (less than

would present evidence on changing

50 percent of median and less than 30

circumstances of the AIAN population in

percent of median). Trends (changes in all

tribal areas, with some information being

key indicators during the past 5-10 years)

offered on the surrounding counties (it

would be analyzed by ONAP region.

would contain no information on conditions

in metropolitan or nonmetropolitan locations

The report would then move to program

outside of Indian Country).

performance under NAHASDA, including

updates of the ONAP-PTD tables presented

It would begin with a summary of findings

here in sections 3.2 and 3.3. This would

from the National Review report for the

start with Line of Credit Control System

same year, but then focus the discussion

data on grant amounts during the past 5

on tribal areas and surrounding counties.

years, both in nominal and real terms—the

This part would explain the demographic

question is whether the IHBG grant has lost

and socioeconomic context, which must

purchasing power in real terms and if so, by

be understood to assess the dynamics

how much. Next, data would be presented

behind how housing needs in Indian

on expenditure levels by activity category

Country are changing, and also trends

(exhibits 3.23 and 3.24). The purpose is

in the ability of this population to afford

to find out which categories have been

decent housing. In census years, emphasis

growing or declining, both proportionally

would be given to analysis of the growth

and in real dollars. An obvious question

rates of AIAN populations in tribal areas

is whether amounts spent on housing

(past decade) compared with those of

production have been squeezed down

non-Indians—nationwide and by region.

because of continued expenditures in

Comparative population growth rates have

other categories that are harder to cut (as

a great deal to do with understanding

observed during the past 10-15 years).

potential future housing needs.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

153

Part 3. Housing Policies and Programs

This would be followed by analysis of

Analysis for Individual Tribal Areas

housing production (in units) during the

An additional need that should be

past 5 years broken down by tenure and by

considered. In the course of this study,

acquisition/construction versus rehabilitation.

many tribes said they would like to develop

It has been noted in this report how difficult

better data on housing conditions and

it is to interpret these production numbers

other circumstances for their own individual

because they are made up of different

reservations to guide program planning. This

program types. For example, building 100

interest can in part be met for the larger

units in the same format as the 1937 Act

tribes (that is, where ACS sample sizes

rental program (in which the tribe retains

warrant) by sending them standard situation

ownership and obligations for maintenance),

profiles from the ACS each year (formats

is a very different thing from providing an

and indicators as per the national review

upfront capital subsidy to a private owner

suggested previously) and encouraging

in which the tribe will have no further

tribal input regarding data presentation

involvement in the project after construction.

and formats.70 In addition however, PD&R

The most valuable change to the APR would

should work with ONAP to develop

be a requirement that the tribes report

efficient guidelines and training programs

production levels for 5 to 6 basic program

to help tribes (that can mount the needed

types and also totals in the future.

resources) conduct sample surveys and

In each of these efforts, the data tables would

use other available data to assess their own

be supplemented by interviews with key

situations efficiently. This study’s household

stakeholders at all levels and reviews of new

survey instrument is publicly available to

program reports and other literature, possibly

tribes for their use. This is an important

with a simpler survey of tribes/TDHEs and

responsibility consistent with the intent of

other key stakeholders in some years.

NAHASDA to enhance tribal capacity and

self-determination.

70  The Census Bureau relies on stakeholders and advisory committees for feedback on AIAN matters. Feedback can be provided to the Census Bureau National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations at https://www.census.gov/about/cac/nac.html.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

154

Glossary

Glossary

child poverty rate: The percentage of

individuals under the age of 18 living in

households that have money incomes that

AIBN: American Indian Business Network.

fall below the poverty threshold for their

Provides an opportunity for tribal businesses

family size and composition, as defined by

to showcase their products and interact

the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

with other business owners and potential

EA: Eligible Area for Section 184 Loans.

customers. It also allows for networking

Participating tribes determine the areas where

among tribal leaders, Indian entrepreneurs,

the Section 184 loan can be used. Many states

and other tribal government businesses.

are eligible in their entirety, although only

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act:

select counties are eligible in other states.

Authorized Alaska Natives to 44 mil ion

FCAS: Formula Current Assisted Stock.

acres of public land in Alaska and

Funding to maintain and operate the older

$962,000,000 in cash as settlement of

1937 Act units built before NAHASDA.

their aboriginal claim to land in the state.

It established Alaska Native vil ages and

FHA: Federal Housing Administration.

regional Alaska Native corporations to

Provides mortgage insurance on loans made

oversee the lands and payments.

by FHA-approved lenders throughout the

United States and its territories. FHA insures

AONAP: Area Offices of Native American

mortgages on single family and multifamily

Programs. Six offices that report directly

homes including manufactured homes and

to ONAP and manage a variety of AIAN

hospitals. FHA mortgage insurance provides

programs funded through HUD.

lenders with protection against losses as the

APR: Annual Performance Report.

result of homeowners defaulting on their

Submitted by tribes to HUD’s Office of

mortgage loans. The lenders bear less risk

Native American Programs as a part of

because FHA will pay a claim to the lender

performance monitoring and quality control.

in the event of a homeowner’s default. Loans

must meet certain requirements established

CDFI Fund: Community Development

by FHA to qualify for insurance.

Financial Institutions Fund.  Created for

the purpose of promoting economic

fractionated ownership: The term used to

revitalization and community development

note ownership of a property in the name of

through investment in and assistance

more than one individual. It is typical y used

to community development financial

in conjunction with allotted or individual trust

institutions. The CDFI Fund was established

lands to describe situations in which, over time

by the Riegle Community Development and

and through division of inheritance, multiple

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. Native

parties have claim to a single property.

American CDFIs and a special CDFI Native

FY: Fiscal year. The federal fiscal year is

Initiative Fund stimulate and aid these CDFIs.

October 1–September 30.

CHR: Community Health Representative.

GED: General educational development

American Indians and Alaska Natives

tests are a group of four subject tests which,

selected, employed, and supervised by their

when passed, provide certification that

tribes and trained by IHS to provide specific

the test taker has achieved American or

healthcare and outreach services at the

Canadian high school-level academic skil s.

community level.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

155

Glossary

HEARTH Act: Helping Expedite and

o   Extended households with relatives

Advance Responsible Tribal Home-

and nonrelatives:  any noncore family

ownership. The HEARTH Act of 2012 creates

household that includes the respondent

an alternative land leasing process. Tribes

with at least one relative and one

are authorized to execute agricultural

nonrelative.

and business leases of tribal trust lands

for a primary term of 25 years and up

•  Single-person households: households

to two renewal terms of 25 years each

in which the respondent is the only

without approval by the Secretary of the

household member.

U.S. Department of the Interior, provided

•  Nonfamily households: households in

governing tribal leasing regulations have

which the respondent lives with at least

already been submitted to the Secretary.

one nonrelative and does not live with any

household composition: This term refers to

relatives or a spouse.

living arrangements of households. In this

•  Other family arrangements: The “other

report, examined household types include—

family arrangements” category is defined

•  Core families: households with or

by the U.S. Census Bureau as male- or

without children in which the only

female-headed households without

adult(s) in the household is the

children under the age of 18.

respondent or the respondent and his/

HIP: Housing Improvement Plan. A housing

her spouse. These include married

assistance program funded under the IHBG

couples with or without children and also

program and administered by the Bureau of

single-parent household types.

Indian Affairs.

•  Extended households:  households that

Indian Self-Determination and Education

include related family members beyond

Assistance Act of 1975: This piece of

the core family structure. This category

legislation redistributed power from the

includes the following subtypes:

federal government to tribes in education and

o   Three-generation families, also called

program administration. Later amendments in

multigenerational families.  Family

the 1980s and 1990s established block grants

households, which are households that

from the Indian Health Service and Bureau of

include at least two members related

Indian Affairs to cover other programs.

by blood, adoption, or marriage,

Indian Country: The definition of “Indian

that include members of at least

Country” has changed throughout history,

three generations (for example, the

but the term is used here in the common

householder, his or her parent, and his

colloquial sense to mean tribal areas,

or her child or a householder, his or

including Alaska Native vil ages. The term

her child, and his or her grandchild).

“Indian Country” is not used as a legal term

This is the same definition used by the

in this report.

U.S. Census Bureau.

IHA: Indian Housing Authorities.

o   Broader extended families:

Responsible for implementing federal

households that include other related

policies on a local level.

household members (for example, the

respondent’s siblings, aunts, uncles,

IHBG: Indian Housing Block Grant. A formula

nieces, nephews), but no nonrelated

grant that provides a range of affordable

household members.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

156

Glossary

housing activities on Indian reservations and

primarily serve low-income families.

Indian areas. The block grant approach to

housing for Native Americans was enabled

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act.

by the Native American Housing Assistance

Requires federal agencies to integrate

and Self Determination Act of 1996.

environmental values into their decision

making processes by considering the

IHP: Indian Housing Plan. Submitted by

environmental impacts of their proposed

tribes to HUD’s Office of Native American

actions and reasonable alternatives to those

Programs as a part of performance

actions. To meet NEPA requirements federal

monitoring and quality control.

agencies prepare a detailed environmental

impact statement.

LIHTC: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the

NADL: Native American Veteran Direct Loan

LIHTC program gives state and local LIHTC-

program. Provides eligible Native American

allocating agencies the equivalent of nearly

Veterans and their spouses the opportunity

$8 bil ion in annual budget authority to issue

to use their VA home loan guaranty benefit

tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation,

on federal trust land.

or new construction of rental housing

targeted to lower-income households.

NOFA: Notice of Funds Availability. Process

used by agencies, including HUD, to procure

LOCCS: Line of Credit Control System.

outside services.

The U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development’s primary grant

OEH: Office of Environmental Health.

disbursement system.

Builds water wel s and septic tanks for tribal

members purchasing or building a home in

MTE: Menominee Tribal Enterprises. A

the service area at Citizen Potawatomi Nation.

tribal y owned lumber production company.

ONAP: Office of Native American Programs

Native American Credit Unions: A credit

within HUD. Administers housing and

union is a financial cooperative, owned

community development programs that

entirely by its members. A Native American

benefit American Indian and Alaska Native

credit union typical y has Native American

tribal governments, tribal members, the

members and provides financial services to

Department of Hawai an Home Lands,

Native American communities.

Native Hawai ans, and other Native

American organizations.

NAHASDA: Native American Housing

Assistance and Self Determination Act.

overcrowding: A household that has more

Signed on October 26, 1996, NAHASDA

than one occupant per room. This includes

replaced the myriad programs that had

households that are severely overcrowded

previously provided housing assistance

(that is, those with more than 1.5 occupants

to Native American tribes under the U.S.

per room).

Housing Act of 1937 with a block grant that

allowed tribes or their Tribal y Designated

poverty rate: The percentage of people

Housing Entities (also called TDHEs)

living in households that have money

more flexibility to decide whom to serve,

incomes that fall below the poverty

what services to offer, and how to deliver

threshold for their family size and

programs and services. As with the 1937 Act,

composition, as defined by the U.S. Office of

under NAHASDA, tribes are still required to

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

157

Glossary

Management and Budget.

to obtain adequate housing through

conventional financing. The program is

PTD: Performance tracking database. Used

managed by the Rural Housing service,

by Office of Native American Programming

which is part of Rural Development in the

to monitor performance and financial

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

information related to the Indian Housing

Block Grant program.

severe overcrowding: A household that has

more than 1.5 occupants per room.

RHS: Rural Housing Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Administers

Snyder Act: Public Law 67-85, November 2,

Section 502 Direct Lending program.

1921 authorized the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

under the supervision of the Secretary

RV: Recreational vehicle. A large vehicle that

of the Interior, to “direct, supervise, and

often has a bathroom, kitchen, and beds for

expend such moneys as Congress may

use during travel and camping.

from time to time appropriate, for the

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee

benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians

Program: Loan Guarantees for Indian

throughout the United States” for purposes

Housing (see 24 CFR part 1005), commonly

including education; health; general

referred to as the Section 184 Program,

administration of Indian property; extension,

is a home mortgage program specifical y

improvement, operation, and maintenance

designed for American Indian and Alaska

of existing Indian irrigation systems and for

Native families, Alaska vil ages, tribes,

development of water supplies; repair of

or Tribal y Designated Housing Entities.

the buildings and grounds of existing plants

Section 184 loans can be used, both on

and projects; and various other aspects of

and off native lands, for new construction,

governance and administration.

rehabilitation, purchase of an existing home,

TDC: Total Development Cost. Total

or refinance. The program is managed by

Development Cost (TDC) is calculated by

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

averaging the current construction costs

Development (HUD). Section 184 home

for a moderately designed house as listed

loans are guaranteed 100 percent by the

in not less than two national y recognized

Office of Loan Guarantee within HUD’s

residential construction cost indices.

Office of Native American Programs.

TDHE: Tribal y Designated Housing Entity.

Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing

The entity designated by each tribe that is

Loan Program: The Section 502 Guaranteed

responsible for administering its housing

Rural Housing Loan Program is designed

assistance program that is funded by the

to serve rural residents who have a steady,

federal government.

low or modest income, and yet are unable

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

158

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

List of Acronyms and

IRS: Internal Revenue Service.

NAIHC: National American Indian Housing

Abbreviations

Council.

NCAI: National Congress of American

ACS: American Community Survey.

Indians.

AHS: American Housing Survey.

NIGC: National Indian Gaming Commission.

AIAN: American Indians and Alaskan Native.

OIP: Office of Indian Programs. Replaced by

Office of Native American Programs.

AMI: Area Median Income.

OLHA: Oglala Sioux Lakota Housing

ARRA: American Recovery and

Authority.

Reinvestment Act of 2009.

OMB: U.S. Office of Management and

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Budget.

CDBG: Community Development Block

OST: Oglala Sioux Tribe.

Grant.

OSTPH: Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for

CDC: Community Development Corporation.

Housing.

CDFI: Community development financial

PIH: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

institutions.

Development’s Office of Public and Indian

Housing.

DOE: Department of Energy.

PD&R: U.S. Department of Housing and

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency.

Urban Development’s Office of Policy

GAO: Government Accountability Office. (In

Development and Research.

2004, the name changed from the General

TVCDC: Thunder Valley Community

Accounting Office to the Government

Development Corporation.

Accountability Office.)

USDA: United States Department of

HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and

Agriculture.

Urban Development.

ZHA: Zuni Housing Authority.

ICDBG: Indian Community Development

Block Grant.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

159

References

References

Corey, Kristen, Jennifer Biess, Nancy Pindus,

and Doray Sitko. 2016.  Housing

Needs of Native Hawai ans: A Report

Alexander, Trent. 2011. “Presentation to

From the Assessment of American

the State Data Centers and Census

Indian, Alaska Native, and Native

Information Centers.” American

Hawaiian Housing Needs.  Prepared

Community Survey Steering

for the U.S. Department of Housing

Committee Updates. February 16.

and Urban Development, Office of

Policy Development and Research.

Austin, Algernon. 2009.  American Indians

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

and the Great Recession: Economic

Disparities Growing Larger.  Issue Brief

Cornel , Stephen, and Joseph P. Kalt. 1989.

#264. Washington, DC: Economic

Pathways from Poverty: Development

Policy Institute.

and Institute Building on American

Indian Reservations.  Harvard Project

Bank2. n.d. “About Us. ” http://www.bank2online.

on American Indian Economic

com/about-us/about-us.html.

Development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University.

Bedré Fine Chocolate. 2006. “Our Company.”

http://www.bedrechocolates.com/jsps/

. 1992. “Reloading the Dice:

company.jsp.

Improving the Chances for Economic

Development on American Indian

Burt, Martha R. 2001. “What Will It Take To

Reservations.” In  What Can Tribes

End Homelessness?” Washington, DC:

Do? Strategies and Institutions in

Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/

American Economic Development,

research/publication/what-wil -it-take-

edited by Stephen Cornell and Joseph

end-homelessness.

P. Kalt. Los Angeles, CA: University of

Chickasaw Nation. 2013. “About Tribal

California at Los Angeles, American

Commerce.” http://www.chickasaw.

Indian Studies Center: Chapter 1.

net/tribal_commerce/index_222.htm.

Cunningham, Mary K. 2009. “Preventing

Cooper, Kenneth J. 2011. “As Housing

and Ending Homelessness—Next

Shortage Worsens, Tribes Forced To

Steps.” Washington, DC: Urban

Use FEMA Trailers,”  America’s Wire.

Institute. http://www.urban.org/

May 2. http://newamericamedia.

UploadedPDF/411837_ending_

org/2011/05/as-housing-crisis-

homelessness.pdf.

escalates-native-american-tribes-use-

fema-mobile-homes.php.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

160

References

De la Merced, Michael J. 2006. “Florida’s

Harvard Project on American Indian

Seminole Tribe Buys Hard Rock Cafes

Economic Development (Harvard

and Casinos,”  New York Times.  http://

Project). 2003.  Honoring Nations: 2003

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/

Honoree Quil Ceda Vil age, The Tulalip

business/08rock.html?_r=0.

Tribes (Tulalip, WA).  Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University, John F. Kennedy

DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, and Bernadette

School of Government.

D. Proctor. 2015. “Income and

Poverty in the United States: 2014.”

. 2008.  The State of the Native Nations:

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self-

Commerce, Economics and Statistics

Determination.  New York, NY: Oxford

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

University Press.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/

Census/library/publications/2015/

Hillabrant, Walter, Judy Earp, Mack

demo/p60-252.pdf.

Rhoades, and Nancy Pindus. 2004.

Overcoming Challenges to Business

DeWeaver, Norm. 2010.  The American

and Economic Development in Indian

Community Survey: Serious Implications

Country.  Princeton, NJ: Mathematica

for Indian Country.  Washington, DC:

Policy Research.

National Congress of American Indians

Policy Research Center.

Housing Assistance Council. 2012.  Taking Stock:

Rural People, Poverty, and Housing in the

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen.

21st Century.  Washington, DC: Housing

2015.  Components of Inventory

Assistance Council.

Change, 2009–2011.  Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

. 2013. “Conducting Homeless Counts

Urban Development, Office of Policy

on Native American Lands: A Toolkit.”

Development and Research.

Washington, DC: Housing Assistance

Council. http://www.ruralhome.org/

George, Lance, Eric Oberdorfer, Theresa

storage/documents/rpts_pubs/na_

Singleton, Jen Wichmann, and Keith

homeless_count_toolkit.pdf.

Wiley. 2002.  Taking Stock: Rural

People, Poverty, and Housing at the

Irving, Shelley K., and Tracy A. Loveless.

Turn of the 21st Century.  Washington,

2015. “Dynamics of Economic Wel -

DC: Housing Assistance Council.

Being: Participation in Government

Programs, 2009–2012: Who Gets

Hardiman, David L., Carolyn Lynch, Marge

Assistance?” Washington, DC: U.S.

Martin, Barry L. Steffen, David A.

Department of Commerce, Economics

Vandenbroucke, Yung-Gann David Yao.

and Statistics Administration, U.S.

2010.  Worst Case Housing Needs 2007:

Census Bureau. https://www.census.

A Report to Congress.  Washington,

gov/content/dam/Census/library/

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.

Urban Development, Office of Policy

Development and Research.

Katz, Bruce, and Margery Austin Turner.

2007.  Rethinking U.S. Rental Housing

Policy.  Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for

Housing Studies of Harvard University.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

161

References

Kendal , Mary, Acting Inspector General,

Listokin, David, Kenneth Temkin, Nancy

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2011.

Pindus, and David Stanek. 2016.

“Regulatory Barriers to American Indian

Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land:

Job Creation.”  Testimony before the

A Report From the Assessment of

House Subcommittee on Technology

American Indian, Alaska Native, and

Information, Intergovernmental

Native Hawai an Housing Needs.

Relations and Procurement Reform.

Prepared for the U.S. Department of

112th Cong., First sess., April 7, 2011.

Housing and Urban Development, Office

Serial No. 112-32. Washington, DC: U.S.

of Policy Development and Research.

Government Printing Office.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Virginia E. Spencer,

Lofquist, Daphne A. 2012. “Multigenerational

John Simonson, Carla E. Herbig,

Households: 2009–2011.” American

Nancy Kay, Maris Mikelsons, and Peter

Community Survey Brief.

Tatian. 1996.  Assessment of American

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Indian Housing Needs and Programs:

Commerce, Economics and Statistics

Final Report.  Washington, DC: U.S.

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

Department of Housing and Urban

Manning, Wendy D., and Susan Brown.

Development.

2006. “Children’s Economic Wel -

Kolluri, Lopa, and Kristopher M. Rengert.

Being in Married and Cohabitating

2000. “Housing and Homeownership

Parent Families,”  Journal of Marriage

on American Indian Tribal Lands:

and Family 68 (2): 345–362.

Barriers, Progress, and the Promise

Masnick, George S., Daniel McCue, and Eric

of New Initiatives,”  Housing Facts &

S. Belsky. 2010.  Updated 2010–2020

Findings 2 (3): page range unavailable.

Household and New Home Demand

Levy, Diane K., Jennifer Biess, Abby Baum,

Projections.  Cambridge, MA: Joint

Nancy Pindus, and Brittany Murray.

Center for Housing Studies of Harvard

2016. Housing Needs of American

University.

Indians and Alaska Natives in Urban

McAuley, Wil iam J., and Cheri L. Nutty.

Areas: A Report From the Assessment

1982. “Residential Preferences and

of American Indian, Alaska Native,

Moving Behavior: A Family Life-Cycle

and Native Hawai an Housing Needs.

Analysis,”  Journal of Marriage and

Prepared for the U.S. Department of

Family 44 (2): 301–309.

Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Policy Development and

National Commission on American Indian,

Research. Washington, DC: Urban

Alaska Native, and Native Hawai an

Institute.

Housing. 1992.  Building the Future: A

Blueprint for Change “By our homes

Listokin, David, with Robin Leichenko

you will know us.”  Washington, DC:

and Juliet King. 2006.  Housing and

National Commission on American

Economic Development in Indian

Indian, Alaska Native, and Native

Country: Chal enge and Opportunity.

Hawai an Housing.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

162

References

National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA).

Pettit, Kathryn L.S., G. Thomas Kingsley,

2009. “The Economic Impact of Indian

Jennifer Biess, Kassie Bertumen,

Gaming.”  http://www.indiangaming.

Nancy Pindus, Chris Narducci, and

org/info/NIGA_2009_Economic_

Amos Budde. 2014.  Continuity and

Impact_Report.pdf.

Change: Demographic, Socioeconomic

and Housing Conditions of American

. 2011. “2010 National Indian Gaming

Indians and Alaska Natives.

Association Annual Report. ” http://

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

www.indiangaming.org/info/2011_

of Housing and Urban Development,

Annual_Report.PDF.

Office of Policy Development and

Research.

National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC).

2010. “Growth in Indian Gaming Graph

Phinney, Robin, Sheldon Danziger, Harold

1999–2009.” http://www.nigc.gov/

A. Pollack, and Kristin Seefeldt. 2007.

LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3mc9

“Housing Instability among Current

Gc%3d&tabid=67.

and Former Welfare Recipients,”

American Journal of Public Health 97

. 2012a. “Gaming Revenues 2007–2011.”

(5): 832–837.

http://www.nigc.gov/Portals/0/

NIGC%20Uploads/Tribal%20Data/

Robinson, Robert. 1995.  The Economic

GamingRevenues20072011.pdf.

Impact of Indian Reservation-Based

Gaming Activities.  Washington, DC:

. 2012b. “Growth in Indian Gaming

National Indian Policy Center.

Graph 2002–2011.” http://www.nigc.

gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kxuWD3

RPI Consulting, The Jones Payne Group,

mc9Gc%3d&tabid=67.

Native Home Capital, and Alternative

Marketing Solutions. 2011.  Phase

Nelson, Sandi. 2004. “Trends in Parent’s

II Housing Needs Assessment and

Economic Hardship.” Washington, DC:

Demographic Analysis.  Prepared for

Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/

Navajo Housing Authority. Durango,

publications/310970.html.

CO: RPI Consulting.

Novogradic & Company. n.d. Affordable

Skaburskis, Andrejs. 1999. “Modeling Choice

Housing Resource Center. “About

of Tenure and Building Type,”  Urban

the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.”

Studies  36 (13): 2199–2215.

https://www.novoco.com/resource-

centers/affordable-housing-tax-

Snipp, Matthew C. 1989.  American Indians:

credits/lihtc-basics/about-lihtc

The First of This Land.  New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Parker, Jennifer D., Nathaniel Schenker,

Deborah D. Ingram, James A. Weed,

Spil man, Brenda C., Jennifer Biess, and

Katherine E. Heck, and Jennifer H.

Graham MacDonald. 2012.  Housing as

Madans. 2004. “Bridging Between Two

a Platform for Improving Outcomes for

Standards for Collecting Information

Older Renters.  Washington, DC: Urban

on Race and Ethnicity: An Application

Institute.

to Census 2000,”  Public Health

Reports  119 (2): 192–205.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

163

References

Steffen, Barry L., Keith Fudge, Marge

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Census Bureau

Martin, Maria Teresa Souza, David A.

Reports American Indian- and Alaska

Vandenbroucke, and Yung-Gann David

Native-Owned Businesses Generated

Yao. 2011.  Worst Case Housing Needs

$34 Billion in Receipts in 2007.”

2009: Report to Congress.  Washington,

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

releases/archives/business_

Urban Development, Office of Policy

ownership/cb11-47.html.

Development and Research.

. 2014a.  American Community Survey

Steffen, Barry L., with Shawn Bucholtz,

Design and Methodology.  Washington,

Marge Martin, David A. Vandenbroucke,

DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

and Yung-Gann David Yao. 2013,

. 2014b.  Methodology for State and

Worst Case Housing Needs 2011:

County Total Housing Unit Estimates

Report to Congress.  Washington,

(Vintage 2014), April 1, 2010, to July

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

1, 2014.  Washington, DC: U.S. Census

Urban Development, Office of Policy

Bureau.

Development and Research.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office

Stuts, Howard. 2012. “Seminoles Have

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Become a Force in Indian Gaming,”

Energy (OEERE). n.d. “Weatherization

Las Vegas Review Journal,  February

Assistance Program.” http://www.

12. http://www.reviewjournal.com/

energy.gov/eere/wipo/weatherization-

business/casinos-gaming/seminoles-

assistance-program.

have-become-force-indian-gaming.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Thornton, Dennis. n.d. “Menominee Tribal

Development (HUD). n.d. “Community

Enterprises Celebrates Century of

Development Block Grant Program.”

Lumber Production.” http://mtewood.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/

com/News%20&%20Events/Articles/

HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_

Menominee%20100th.pdf.

planning/communitydevelopment/

Todd, Richard M., and Frederico Burlon.

programs.

2009.  Homeownership Gaps Among

. 2015a.  The 2015 Annual Homeless

Indian Reservations Prove Puzzling.

Assessment Report (AHAR) to

Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve

Congress: Part 1: Point-in-Time

Bank of Minneapolis.

Estimates of Homelessness.

Trosper, Ronald L. 2007. “Indigenous

Washington, DC:U.S, Department of

Influence on Forest Management on

Housing and Urban Development.

the Menominee Indian Reservation,”

https://www.hudexchange.info/

Forest Ecology and Management  249

resources/documents/2015-AHAR-

(2007): 134–139.

Part-1.pdf.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

164

References

. 2015b.  The 2014 Annual Homeless

. 2015b.”Who Counts? Identifying

Assessment Report (AHAR) to

Native American Populations,”

Congress: Part 2: Estimates of

Evidence Matters  Spring: 16–21.

Homelessness in the United States.

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau

Washington, DC:U.S. Department of

of Indian Affairs (BIA). n.d. “HEARTH

Housing and Urban Development.

Act of 2012. ” http://bia.gov/WhoWeAre/

https://www.hudexchange.info/

BIA/OTS/HEARTH/index.htm.

onecpd/assets/File/2014-AHAR-

Part-2.pdf.

. 2015. “Housing Improvement

Program.” http://www.bia.gov/

. 2015c.  Coordinated Environmental

WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/

Review Process Final Report.

HousingImprovementProgram/.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Development. http://portal.hud.

Statistics.  Glossary.  http://www.bls.

gov/hudportal/documents/

gov/bls/glossary.htm

huddoc?id=CoorEnvirReview.pdf

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1978.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Substandard Indian Housing Increases

Development (HUD), Office of Native

Despite Federal Efforts—A Change is

American Programs (ONAP). 2011.

Needed.  CED-78-63. Washington, DC:

NAHASDA Essentials.  Washington,

U.S. General Accounting Office.

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of Native

U.S. Government Accountability Office

American Programs.

(GAO). 2014.  Native American

Housing: Additional Actions Needed

. 2014.  Report to Congress: Native

to Better Support Tribal Efforts:

American Housing and Self-

Report to Congress.  Washington,

Determination Act,  Fiscal Year 2013.

DC: U.S. Government Accountability

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

Office.  http://www.gao.gov/

of Housing and Urban Development,

assets/670/662063.pdf.

Office of Native American Programs.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness

. 2015.  Report to Congress: Native

(USICH). 2012.  Expert Panel on

American Housing and Self-

Homelessness among American Indians,

Determination Act, Fiscal Year 2014.

Alaska Natives, and Native Hawai ans.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

Washington, DC: U.S. Interagency

of Housing and Urban Development,

Council on Homelessness. https://

Office of Native American Programs.

www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/report-

on-homelessness-among-american-

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

indians-alaska-natives.

Development (HUD), Office of Policy

Development and Research (PD&R).

2015a. “Obstacles, Solutions, and Self-

Determination in Indian Housing Policy,”

Evidence Matters Spring: 1; 3–15.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

165

References

U.S. Minority Business Development Agency.

Wilder Research. 2014.  Homelessness and

2006.  The State of Minority Business

Near-Homelessness on Minnesota

Enterprises: An Overview of the 2002

Indian Reservations: 2012 Study.  St.

Survey of Business Owners.  Washington,

Paul, MN: Wilder Research. https://

DC: Government Printing Office.

www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/

Publications/Studies/Homelessness%20

Van Otten, Dan, Joyce McAfee, Larry Buron,

in%20Minnesota%202012%20Study/

Jennifer Turnham, John Griffith, and

Homelessness%20and%20Near-

Brooke Spel man. 2009.  Indian Housing

Homelessness%20on%20Minnesota%20

Block Grant Program Evaluation Report.

Indian%20Reservations.pdf.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

166

Additional Reading

Joice, Paul, Ben J. Winter, Heidi Johnson,

Additional Reading

and Abubakari Zuberi. 2011.

Redistribution Effect of Introducing

2010 Census and 2005–2009

Burt, Martha, Laudan Y. Aron, and Edgar

ACS Data Into the CDBG Formula.

Lee, with Jesse Valente. 2001.  Helping

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

America’s Homeless: Emergency

Housing and Urban Development.

Shelter or Affordable Housing?

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Jorgensen, Miriam, Sarah Dewees, and Karen

Edwards. 2008.  Borrowing Trouble:

Dewees, Sarah, and Stewart Sarkozy-Banoczy.

Predatory Lending in Native American

2008. “Investing in Native Community

Communities.  Longmont, CO: First

Change: Understanding the Role of

Nations Development Institute.

Community Development Financial

Institutions.”  http://www.cdfifund.

Laderman, Elizabeth, and Carolina Reid.

gov/impact_we_make/research/

2010. “Mortgage Lending on Native

rural-and-underserved-markets/

American Reservations: Does a

reports/Investing%20in%20Native%20

Guarantee Matter?”  Journal of Housing

Community%20Change%20-%20

Economics  19(3): 233–242.

Understanding%20the%20Role%20

of%20Community%20Development.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Census Bureau

Releases Estimates of Undercount and

First Nations Development Institute. 2008.

Overcount in the 2010 Census.” http://

“Borrowing Trouble: Predatory Lending

www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/

in Native American Communities.”

archives/2010_census/cb12-95.html.

http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/

Topics/Special%20Interest%20Areas/

U.S. Congress House Committee on

Other/Borrowing Trouble Predatory

Financial Services. 2010. “Community

LendinginNativeAmeri/borrowing%20

Development Financial Institutions

trouble.pdf.

(CDFIs): Their Unique Role and

Challenges Serving Lower-Income,

Goldstein, Ira, and Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg.

Underserved and Minority Communities.”

2008.  Subprime Lending, Mortgage

http://financialservices.house.gov/

Foreclosures and Race: How Far

media/file/hearings/111/tanya_fiddler_

Have We Come and How Far Have

testimony_final_3-9-10.pdf.

We To Go?  Philadelphia, PA: The

Reinvestment Fund.

Ingram, Deborah D., Jennifer D. Parker,

Nathaniel Schenker, James A. Weed,

Brady Hamilton, Elizabeth Arias,

Jennifer H. Madans. 2003. “United

States Census 2000 Population With

Bridged Race Categories,”  Vital Health

Statistics 2 (135): 1–55.

HOUSING NEEDS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES IN TRIBAL AREAS

167

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................

Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions  ......................................................

Housing Conditions and Needs  ......................................................................

Housing Policies and Programs  .....................................................................

Conclusions and Recommendations  ...................................................................

Introduction .......................................................................................

Purpose and Content of This Report .................................................................

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs ...............................................................

Background Interviews and Literature Reviews  ......................................................

New Data Collected Specifically for This Study .....................................................

Geographies ........................................................................................

Part 1. Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions ...............................13

1.2. Population Growth and Distribution ............................................................

Population Growth  .................................................................................

Broad Spatial Patterns .............................................................................

Population Trends for Tribal Areas by Region .......................................................

Mobility ...........................................................................................

1.3. Social and Economic Conditions ................................................................

Age Structure ......................................................................................

Household Sizes and Types ..........................................................................

Educational Attainment .............................................................................

Employment .........................................................................................

Income and Poverty .................................................................................

How the AIAN Population Fared in the Great Recession ...............................................

The National Story .................................................................................

Regional Variations ................................................................................

Implications .......................................................................................

Employment Growth in the 2000s .....................................................................

Tribally Owned Businesses and Enterprises ..........................................................

1.5. Diversity Among Tribal Areas ..................................................................

Indicators and Hypotheses ..........................................................................

Diversity and Correlation Analysis  ................................................................

Regression Analysis  ...............................................................................

Part 2. Housing Conditions and Needs ............................................................55

2.2. Housing Characteristics .......................................................................

Vacancy Rates ......................................................................................

Tenure (Renter versus Homeowner Occupancy) .........................................................

Structure Type......................................................................................

Other Indicators ...................................................................................

Age of Structure and Unit Size .....................................................................

Home Values and Rents ..............................................................................

Framework and Standards ............................................................................

Housing Problems and Needs—Survey Results ..........................................................

Housing Problems as Reported by the U.S. Census/ACS ................................................

Problems for Low-Income Households .................................................................

Change in Tribal Area Housing Problems Over Time ...................................................

2.4. Housing Composition, Overcrowding, and Homelessness ...........................................

Household Composition ..............................................................................

Household Size .....................................................................................

The Relationship Between Overcrowding and Homelessness .............................................